Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act

Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from North Dakota. He is retiring. We are going to miss him. He has been a powerful voice in the Senate and no more powerful on any issue than on this one, talking about American jobs and how we are giving them away, literally giving them away.

Time and time again Senator Byron Dorgan has come to the floor to explain that our Tax Code rewards American companies that want to ship production overseas. Is that upside down? As Senator Dorgan has said on the floor, and I completely agree with him, we should reward American companies that keep good-paying jobs in America. That is what our Tax Code should reward. If they will pay a living wage and good benefits to a worker, and stay in the United States of America, we ought to give them every tax break we can give them--help them in every way we can. Instead, it is upside down. We create incentives for them to move jobs overseas.

We are a few weeks away from an election. I wish this election would be a simple referendum on the debate we are having on the floor of the Senate right now. The Senate Republican leader has come to the floor and said we should not be talking about this issue. He wants to talk about something else. Others, representing the largest corporations and businesses in America, say that the position being taken by the Democrats to stop the tax breaks for American companies that ship jobs overseas should be defeated. I wish to take that question to the American voters. You pick the State, you pick the city, you pick the neighborhood. I want to be there. I will take our position and I invite the Republican Senators and the Chamber of Commerce and whatever other groups happen to believe the other point of view for an active debate. Who in the world believes we should be rewarding corporations in our country for shipping jobs overseas?

We know what we are going through here. This recession has cost us millions of American jobs. Under President William Jefferson Clinton, we created 22 million new jobs in America. We had the growth of small business at a pace we had never seen. We had minority ownership, woman ownership of business at a pace we had never seen. We saw the growth of new home construction and new home ownership at a record pace. During the course of that 8-year period of time, we generated a surplus in the Federal Treasury--a surplus. We had not done that for a decade or more.

So came the time when President Clinton was leaving office, handing it over to President George W. Bush. This is what he gave him: a growing economy creating jobs, home ownership and business ownership. He said to President George W. Bush: Here is the state of our economy. We are reducing our national debt because we are generating a surplus, and the entire national debt of America, given from President Clinton to President Bush, was $5 trillion.

President Clinton said to President Bush: In addition to a strong economy that is growing, I also want to tell you I am leaving you a surplus in the Treasury--$120 billion in the next year, more than you need for the expenses of our government. President Clinton said: We have been taking the surplus, incidentally, putting it back into the Social Security trust fund, and that fund will now guarantee every payment with a cost-of-living adjustment through the year 2032. Not a bad gift from President Clinton to President Bush. That was when President George W. Bush took office.

What was the state of America 8 years later, when President Bush left office, when he said to President Obama: Now it is your turn. It was a much different picture. The national debt in America was no longer $5 trillion. Eight years later, after President Bush, it was $12 trillion. In 8 years, only 8 years, President Bush and the Republicans who supported him more than doubled the national debt. How do you do that? How can you take a debt accumulated from George Washington through President Clinton of $5 trillion and make it $12 trillion in 8 years? You had to work at it.

First, you had to engage in two wars we didn't pay for and then you did something--President Bush did something no President had ever done in the history of the United States. In the midst of a war he declared tax cuts. Remember that Republican theory: If we give tax cuts, this economy is going to mushroom and grow with jobs? It did not work. In fact, it failed miserably. It added to our national debt, more than doubled our national debt during the Bush Presidency, so that when President Bush left office he handed to President Obama a $12 trillion debt--not $5 trillion, $12 trillion. Instead of handing him a surplus in the budget of $120 billion for the next year, as he had been given when he came to office, he announced it would be a $1.2 trillion deficit in the next year. That is what President Obama inherited. And of course jobs were melting away--8 million jobs.

The month President Obama was sworn in as President and took his hand off the Bible, we lost 750,000 jobs, a leftover from the Bush economic policies.

Now come the Republicans. They have announced if they are given control of Congress in the next election, they have an idea of where we should go as a Nation. We should go back to the Bush economic policies. That is what the Republican plan for America is, go back to the Bush economic policies of declaring tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America. Senator McConnell stated proudly on the Sunday talk shows yesterday that he has had the courage to step up and put a bill before Congress of what he thinks we should do as a Nation when it comes to economic policy. He did. It was historic. It was so historic that Senator McConnell suggested a tax program that would nearly double the national debt--nearly double it--during the same period of time: $4 trillion of new debt for America. How does he do it? On the Republican side, by suggesting we continue to give tax breaks to those in the highest income categories in America.

I for one think that is totally irresponsible. In the midst of a recession, let us help working families, middle-income families struggling to pay their bills, struggling to deal with a home mortgage payment where the value of the home may be going down instead of up. Help those families. But for those who are making $1 million a year or more, why in the world would we add to the national debt to give them a $100,000 tax cut a year? Why? It only adds to the national debt.

The Republican theory is, if you give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America, this economy is going to flourish. I say to the Senators on the other side, it is a theory we tested and it failed. It is the same theory we tested over the last 10 years of Bush tax cuts. If tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America is what we need for our economy, I have one basic question after 10 years: Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs to show for it?

Our approach I think is more reasonable, reasonable in that we would give tax breaks and tax cuts to those working- and middle-income families below $250,000 of income so they can get through this tough economy. I don't care if the economists tell us the

recession is over. As far as I am concerned, to use the vernacular: It ain't over until it's over, and it ain't over until we start creating jobs again.

That is what this debate on the floor of the Senate is about, not just tax policy but basically what is our policy when it comes to shipping jobs overseas.

I think American workers are the hardest working, most productive workers in the world. Put them up against anybody. Will they work for the lowest wages in the world? No. And they should not. We should have a standard of living in this country that we are proud of. But our workers have shown that when paid a living wage, they are productive workers and can compete with anyone.

Yet American companies have decided they want to ship their jobs overseas and see if they can make more money. As far as I am concerned, that is their choice. I think it is a wrong one. That is their choice. But the last thing in the world we ought to do is give them a tax incentive to ship those jobs overseas. We know what has happened to American families here over the last 10 years and longer in America. They have been falling a little bit behind each and every year, in terms of their earning power.

As the Wall Street Journal, which I do not quote very often, put it recently, it was the ``Lost Decade for Family Income.'' The median income in America fell almost 5 percent between 2000 and 2009.

Meanwhile, Merrill Lynch reported earlier this summer the number of financial millionaires in America rose by 16 percent. Solid middle- class manufacturing jobs have been disappearing across the country. The AFL-CIO estimates that from 2000 to 2007--that was the period of time during the Bush Presidency--the United States lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs.

In the 8 years before, under President Clinton, we had created 22 million jobs. Under President Bush, we lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs. By the end of 2009, the fewest number of Americans were working in manufacturing since before World War II. But it is not just the jobs on the shop floor that disappeared during the Bush administration.

Goldman Sachs estimates between 400,000 and 600,000 professional services and information sector jobs have moved overseas in the past few years. That was during a time when these businesses were raking in record profits and jobs were leaving America. Then, when the boom turned into a bust, those wizards of Wall Street, those captains of capitalism, those kings of commerce, those malefactors of great wealth experienced a temporary setback. Profits were down, stocks were down, and so compensation was down on Wall Street, for about 15 minutes.

Corporate profits are now surging, the stock market is roaring back, and endless bonuses are raining down on the chosen few, just like the good old days on Wall Street. But what about the rest of hard-working families across America? What about the families who never have made a million bucks? That is the vast majority of them. What about the families who earned the median wage in this country, about $50,000 a year? Those jobs are not coming back fast enough.

The Recovery Act that we passed last year, with the support of three Republican Senators--only three who would join us in this effort--has at least slowed down the recession and the loss of jobs. It has not produced the turnaround we all want to see. It will take some time. But at least it stopped the recession from becoming even worse.

This recession would not be over yet by anyone's measure had President Obama taken the advice from the other side of the aisle. They believed we should do nothing--nothing--in the midst of a recession. I have heard Senate Republicans come to the floor and criticize President Obama for loaning money to General Motors and Chrysler. I will tell you, in my home State of Illinois, those automobile manufacturing jobs, at General Motors and Chrysler, are good-paying jobs. We have lost a lot of them. But the good news is, those companies are back. They are profitable. They are selling fewer cars and trucks now, but they are selling and they are competitive.

That would never have happened had the Republicans had their way and stopped the President from giving loans necessary to these automobile manufacturers. We would have seen maybe one company, Ford, that might have survived. The other two probably would not be here today in any form, and all the jobs, the tens of thousands of jobs they provide in America, would have been lost.

The Recovery Act saved another 2.7 million Americans from the unemployment roles, according to economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi. In case you think: Well, Durbin, that must be your favorite Democratic economist, Mark Zandi happened to be John McCain's economist when John McCain ran for President, and he credits the Recovery Act with saving 2.7 million jobs.

But even with all these efforts, there is still a lot to do. It is not enough to help the private sector create more jobs. We need for them to be created right here in America. There is one line I can use anywhere in the State of Illinois, and I will bet across this Nation, which I think typifies what most people think about when they think about our economy.

I will bet you I could use this line in the State of Delaware. The line is this: I would like to go into the store tomorrow and find more products stamped ``made in the USA.'' People start applauding. They are sick and tired of all the imports coming in and all the jobs going away.

I know global competition is a fact of life. America could never be a wealthy nation if we just did one another's laundry. We need to produce goods and services that are competitive on a global basis, and we can do it. We have done it in the past and we can do it again. American workers can compete with the best in the world.

But our laws do not give many of our workers a fighting chance. Why should companies be rewarded for shipping good American jobs overseas? China, Germany and Japan and our other competitors do everything they can to generate more work in their home countries so they can sell products from China and Germany and Japan all around the world.

Meanwhile, our conglomerates and many corporations and their friends in Congress defend offshoring tax loopholes that other countries would never allow to stand. That is why I introduced the bill that is going to be voted on tomorrow, with the help of my colleagues and friends, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader; Senator Byron Dorgan, who has been our leader for years on this issue; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, and many others.

It is a bill that has three provisions in it. I think they make sense. First, we will make two changes to discourage U.S. companies from giving out pink slips to Americans while they open the doors at their new factories overseas.

We will say to firms: If you want to shut down operations in the United States and move somewhere else--I hope you do not make that decision, but if you make it, we are not going to give you a tax break to make it easier.

We will also say to the firms, if you want to sell your products in this country that you made overseas, we are not going to let you start making those goods overseas, ship them back to this country, and avoid paying your taxes on your profits, something called deferral.

Second, we will make it more attractive for companies to bring good jobs back home. This is a provision from Senator Schumer of New York, which says to firms: If you bring jobs back from another country, you do not have to pay your share of the payroll taxes on those U.S. workers for 3 years. It is an incentive to bring these jobs back home.

There is nothing radical in this proposal. You would think it would pass by a voice vote. Who in the world would object to ending tax loopholes to send jobs overseas? Who would object to creating tax incentives for bringing jobs from overseas back home?

But that is what this debate is all about. The defenders of these tax loopholes have wasted no time in launching an aggressive lobbying campaign against the bill: The Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers have written in opposition to the bill, and the Republican

leader has already spoken on the floor against even debating this bill. He does not want us to bring it up.

The message they send is clear: Corporate profits are more important than American jobs. I could not disagree more. I have watched too many hard-working, middle-class families lose their livelihoods as companies fire American workers and then use the Tax Code to make shifting jobs overseas more profitable.

In August, I was in Rock Falls and Sterling, IL. A woman named Julie came. She had worked at the local national manufacturing company there for 34 years. She was a grandmother, raised her family, and was trying to help with her grandkids. She had just been notified that company was moving overseas.

I said to her: As painful as it is for you to get that pink slip after 34 years of service to that company, I am sorry to tell you that our Tax Code made it easier for that company to leave town, made it easier for them to do away with your job.

I ran into other workers around Illinois as well. To add insult to injury, after a lifetime of working for these businesses, some of these businesses actually bring in the workers from China and Mexico and ask the American workers, in their last week or two of employment, to train the foreign workers to do their jobs. Can you imagine how hard that must be--to realize that tomorrow you are out of work, and the person sitting across the table, whom you are training, is going to have your job?

Then, how about this? How about the fact that the cost of bringing that foreign worker over here to be trained is now tax deductible under our Tax Code? What is wrong with this picture? A good example of a company moving good American jobs overseas happened in Hennepin, IL. The local steel mill there was built in 1966. I remember it. I was a college student out here at the time, and we were so exited. It was Jones Laughlin, if I am not mistaken, when it first started. It changed ownership over the years. It was a big employer in the region around Hennepin.

They employed 600 people at their peak in a steel mill. Imagine that. As of last year, they still had 300 people on the payroll. Arcelor- Mittal, the huge steel conglomerate, bought the plant in 2005. Many in the community said: This is a break, a godsend. That huge company is going to invest in this plant and we are going to keep our jobs.

It did not happen. Arcelor-Mittal decided last year that the profitable plant in Hennepin--they were making money--the profitable plant, was no longer worth keeping open. Just like that, 300 solid, middle-class jobs disappeared.

I received a lot of letters from members of the community. A 10-year- old girl wrote to me:

My dad . . . got laid off by Lakshmi Mittal, at Mittal

Steel. You see, instead of selling the plant, Lakshmi decided

to ship all of the parts over the oceans . . .--

This 10-year-old wrote to me and said--

I think the plant should not be closed because if he

shipped the parts all over, then hundreds of peoples' jobs

will be lost. Please Help Us!

The heartbreaking news for that young girl is that our Tax Code rewarded the plant for shipping the equipment overseas. This 10-year- old girl, wise beyond her years, heartbroken that her dad had lost his job, may not understand the global implications of plant closings, but she sure knows what it means to her family.

Here is what a 30-year veteran of that plant wrote:

The plant was shut down in the spring even though it made a

profit. . . . Being the father of two college freshman, I

have to wonder what the future will hold for my children . .

. American industry, the backbone of our country, cannot

exist in this environment.

Well, I agree. That is why I am on the floor. That is why this bill is on the floor. We have to do something about it. Here is another one. This is a company that once operated in my home State of Illinois, Honeywell International. They closed their plants in Freeport, Rock Island, Spring Valley, and Springfield and then sent the jobs to India, China, and Mexico.

The Department of Labor certified these workers lost their jobs because the jobs were actually sent overseas. In my hometown of Springfield, the plant closing cost us 120 jobs in the capital city. This was a plant that had been in production since 1938, long before I was born, when it produced the world's first electric clock for automobiles. The plant also supplied electrical products to support our troops during World war II. In an instant, this piece of American history vanished to Juarez, Mexico.

I received a letter from a victim of this particular example of offshoring good American jobs. Here is what he wrote to me:

. . . stop rewarding Honeywell and other corporations that

ship jobs out of the country . . . They don't deserve tax

money for making the US unemployment rate go up further.

Well, that is exactly what this bill before us wants to stop. Let me show you one other illustration. U.S. multinationals are increasing hiring abroad and decreasing hiring at home. In total, between 1999, at this end of the chart, and 2008, multinational corporations in the United States added 2.4 million jobs overseas, a 30-percent increase.

Well, there is nothing wrong with companies growing. But look what happened here at home. Here is the problem. During the same period, these American companies cut 1.9 million jobs in America, an 8-percent decrease. It is obvious. The jobs are being shipped overseas and killed at home. This notion by some companies that if you let us produce overseas it will help our jobs back home, it is not happening. Exactly the opposite is happening--jobs overseas, loss of jobs in the United States.

Well, enough is enough. We need to stop rewarding companies, through our Tax Code, for killing American jobs, and we need to create incentives to bring those jobs back home. This bill is very straightforward. It is a clear choice. Senators can decide. Do they want to stand with American workers? Do they want to stand with those corporate interests that want to ship jobs overseas? Do they believe our Tax Code should reward good American companies that pay good wages and good benefits to American workers and stay here or do they want to create an incentive to ship those jobs overseas?

That is what this bill is all about. I hope there will be at least one Republican Senator who will join us in this effort. It would be a breakthrough. I hope it is more than one. But I hope they are hearing the same thing back home. I would just ask those who oppose it to go to your home State, pick the community, pick the town, and invite me to come and debate you, if you are on the other side of the this issue.

You pick it. I want to be in on that debate.

I believe the bottom line is this: The American Tax Code should be designed to help American companies create good-paying jobs right here in the United States. Our focus ought to be to make sure when people walk in stores across America, they can flip that product over and see made in the USA again. With this vote, Senators will be given a choice where they want the next round of job creation to be. Do they want it in the United States or in China? Middle-class families in this country have been struggling for a long time. They are upset. They want more jobs. They want a Congress that will stand up and fight for them. With this vote, they will find out who is going to be on their side.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to my colleague from Missouri, clean energy jobs are the jobs of the future. As we create more clean energy jobs, we will find a way to compete with China and other nations that are trying to take over this whole area. They know the whole world is moving toward more sensitivity to emissions and the environmental damage they cause. As a result of that, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

The distinguished Senator from California said that if we choose to proceed, we will have a vote tomorrow at 11:30 on this bill. I think her actions are premature, so I do object.

Mr. President, it is my understanding--and I am asking the Presiding Officer--that under rule VI, No. 4, at 7 we are going to be presented with a live quorum call. Is that not correct? Is that the schedule for the Senate? I am asking to determine how much time I have between now and 7 o'clock.

It says, for those who take the time to be familiar with proceedings of this distinguished body, that:

Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a

quorum is not present, the majority of the Senators present

may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when

necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators,

which order shall be determined without debate; and pending

its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate

nor motion, except to adjourn or to recess pursuant to a

previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in

order.

So I thank the President for making that very clear. Hopefully, that sheds some light on what we are doing on a Monday evening, which some Senators would simply call a bed check. We are scheduled to vote at 11:30 tomorrow on whether to proceed with a debate that has been taking place here on the Senate floor. I think that obviously would be the time for the debate. But I think I have about 20, 25 minutes here to make my comments. I shall proceed.

We are really talking about a tax bill. I know the authors of the bill, the people who have spoken before, obviously think it is a major issue. It is a very important issue, but what we are really talking about is bringing to the floor a debate that raises taxes on U.S. companies and makes them less competitive globally. I don't think that is a very good idea, a tax increase on these companies, given the difficult times we have and given the difficult times we have in our export markets, to make our U.S. companies that deal

overseas less competitive. But I don't think we should be surprised, given that the majority has not yet acted to keep taxes from increasing for families and small businesses--everybody--come next January. That is the real bill we should be considering. That is the bill we certainly should be considering before we adjourn until the lameduck session of Congress which I assume is still being planned.

It is most unfortunate that we are going to a lameduck session of Congress. I had a constituent say: Lameduck; that is going to be a Daffy Duck. I think that is a little harsh given the intent of both Houses of Congress, but what we really ought to be talking about is the tax increase that is going to take place in less than 90 days unless Congress acts. I know there was a great discussion within the majority caucus as to whether we should move on that, whether we should take a vote on that, both in the House and the Senate. That is really why I come to the floor.

This is a looming tax increase that will take effect next year. It is going to hit every American who pays income taxes. There has already been a great deal of debate about who will pay these higher taxes. The President and many of his supporters in Congress say they will not raise taxes on those families earning under $250,000 or individuals earning under $200,000. That was a campaign pledge of the President.

The American dream--or at least it was when I was growing up, and I had hoped it would be for my kids and grandkids meant one could climb the ladder of success, the ladder of economic success as high and far as they wanted, and nothing government-made or manmade would stand in their way, except they had to do the climbing. Now we find that when you hit $250,000, if you are filing a joint tax return or if you are earning $200,000 individually--you are rich. They describe people who earn over $200,000, $250,000, and regardless of their obligations, regardless of whether it is a small business, and regardless of what those circumstances may be, bingo, they are going to have to pay that higher tax rate. So we have somebody in Washington describing in manifest detail who is rich and who is not in the United States. I find that to be the antithesis of the American dream, at least as I understood it. I think now there is a hue and cry of, let's level everybody with everybody else. I do not think that is where we want to be in terms of our national intent.

The health care reform law has already broken the pledge in regard to that of the President, the $250,000 and the $200,000, because that imposes a slew of new taxes on small businesses and health care consumers, including those earning well under these income levels. So we should be weary of any pledge by the President or the majority to protect taxpayers from the harmful tax increases that are set to take effect in January. With less than 90 days--about 3 months--left in the year, this administration and the majority in Congress have done nothing except talk about it in their caucuses and to find out where the votes were and to find out how it was playing before the election. That is the truth. Nothing to prevent this massive tax hike on American families and small businesses.

Now it is September. I don't think most families are really thinking about their income taxes right now. They should, but they are not. They put the frustration of April 15 behind them. Tax freedom day is somewhere down the road in April or May. That is when you are paying all the taxes, and that is where all of your income goes to government and you finally have tax freedom day. That becomes something that comes to their mind right off the bat in the spring. But some families were fortunate enough to able to take a vacation as of this summer or late summer. However, many were working instead and very happy to do so, given the situation in regard to jobs. They are just happy to have a job to provide for their families. But none of them are probably thinking about what is going to happen on January 1. They will be handing more of their paycheck over to Uncle Sam. That is exactly what is going to happen if the administration and the majority in Congress do not act and do not act soon. We should act before a lameduck Congress.

Some have dubbed this tax relief package the ``Bush tax cuts,'' saying they only benefit the wealthy. Let me point out, that is simply not correct. I don't see how continuing existing tax policy that has been in effect for 10 years constitutes a tax cut. It is preventing a tax increase. If we want to get partisan about it, it is not about a Bush tax cut, it is about a President Obama tax increase that we are trying to prevent.

Let's take a minute and look at how this tax relief passed on a bipartisan basis and supported by several Senators in the majority who are still serving in this body let's take a look at it and how it has benefited families and small businesses across all income levels.

The bipartisan tax relief doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. This credit amount will be cut in half next year. The bill lowered capital gains and dividend tax rates to benefit families who invest long term and save for their future.

These taxes will go up dramatically next year. If you read any financial publication, are aware of any think tank that deals with taxes and finances and the economic outlook for this country, you find out that is going to have a dramatic effect--a very unfortunate law of unintended effects. Those taxes will go up, as I said, very dramatically next year by as much as 33 percent for capital gains and 164 percent for dividends.

This bill lowered income tax rates for every taxpayer who pays taxes--I am talking about the 10-year existing tax relief--whether you are a lower income taxpayer, a middle-income taxpayer or an upper income taxpayer. So unless we act soon--and that is in the hands of the majority--taxes will go up for every taxpayer as of next year, and that is the bill we should be considering now, not a bill that is going to cause quite a bit of harm to every company that does business overseas.

Here are just a few examples of what this will mean to working families if the majority allows these provisions to expire: A single parent with two children who earns $30,000 will see a tax increase of $1,100 a year. A family of four who earns $50,000 will see a tax increase, on an average, of $2,100 per year.

Clearly, these families are earning well below the $250,000 threshold the President promised not to raise taxes on, these folks. Yet in just 3 months, that is exactly what is going to happen. So you might want to think about it, America, as well as what is going to happen down the road a little bit. You have Halloween. That is about when the lameduck Congress comes back. You have Halloween and then you have Thanksgiving, Christmas--not the time you are thinking about a big tax increase that is going to whack you right in the forehead, but that is exactly what is going to happen.

The President's supporters in the Congress have yet to introduce a bill to prevent this tax hike. It is that simple. We certainly do not see any language on a bill to prevent these massive tax hikes that go into effect on January 1.

However, the President and his supporters in the Congress say they want to extend tax relief for everyone but those taxpayers they say are wealthy. Who are these folks? Who are these wealthy taxpayers? Well, under the President's proposal, and presumably the proposal supported by most in the majority, it is any individual who earns more than $200,000 in income per year or any family who earns more than $250,000.

I know there are some who earn much less than these amounts who think that sounds fine. Well, maybe to some it does. It is always:

Don't tax me. I won't tax thee. Tax the guy behind the

tree.

There is a little bit of envy here that goes on among all of us, I think, in our hearts when we look at people who earn huge salaries. Somehow, some way that we have now defined those people at $250,000 and $200,000.

I think that is unfortunate because we all benefit--we all benefit-- when incomes increase and people become successful. That is how the economy gets turned around. That is how we have people who are entrepreneurs and they invest and they provide more jobs. When incomes go up and people have more of their own money to spend and invest as they see fit, more businesses are started, expanded, more jobs are created and--guess what--more income comes into the government.

There is a lot of money sitting on the sidelines waiting. If you do not take more money out of people's pockets, you will see, I think, a burst of economic activity that results directly or indirectly to the Federal Government.

I was just reading in the Wall Street Journal an article about that. I intended to bring it over, but I failed to do so. You can just take it from me. When incomes go up and people have more of their own money to spend and invest as they see fit, more businesses are started and expanded and more jobs are created.

To see the harm in raising the top two tax rates, to target those earning over the $200,000/$250,000 threshold, we only have to look at what allowing this tax relief to expire means for small businesses to see the danger in allowing this tax increase to take place.

Because many small business owners pay their taxes on their individual income taxes, if the top two income tax rates are increased as the President proposes, small business owners in these tax brackets will pay those higher income tax rates.

The administration says these higher taxes will affect only 3 percent of small businesses, so we should not be concerned about raising these taxes. If we have heard 3 percent, we have heard that enough over and over and over again: only 3 percent. But those numbers downplay the impact of raising taxes on small businesses.

Let's look at what such a tax hike would mean for America's small businesses. Keep in mind, these are the same businesses that, by the President's own admission, are the Nation's job creators. They create 70 percent of the jobs in this country--70 percent. Yet under the President's proposal, tax rates would increase by at least 17 percent on small businesses.

According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, that means three-quarters of a million businesses--750,000 small businesses--will pay higher taxes.

Allowing the top rates to expire subjects nearly $500 billion-- another $\1/2\ trillion--in small business income to higher taxes. This is a very conservative number. Further, small businesses with between 20 and 299 workers employ about 25 percent of the U.S. workforce. So we are taking action to raise taxes on 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

These small businesses will have to recover the cost of higher taxes somewhere. It may come from lower wages. Will they lay off workers? Will they reduce benefits or raise the cost of their products? That is dicey, given this kind of environment in regard to consumers and what they are able to do. None are good options.

With unemployment holding steady at over 9 percent, common sense would indicate, that raising taxes on those businesses that are creating jobs is a very bad idea. As small businesses face a significant tax hike come January, workers will inevitably pay the price. By one estimate, an increase in the top tax rate would cost jobs by reducing small business hiring by as much as 18 percent. That is 18 percent we do not need.

Raising taxes on small businesses will also likely slow the already weak economic recovery. We see a lot of headlines saying: The recession is over. But let's talk about the economic recovery we all wish--both Democrats and Republicans, all of us wish--would take place. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, the NFIB, has said the second most cited concern of small businesses is taxes. As a result, small businesses are sitting on the sidelines until they know whether they are going to be facing higher taxes come January 1. That ought to be obvious. Small businesses need certainty about how much they are going to owe in Federal taxes.

Yet, once again, this administration's rhetoric on small business does not match the reality of its proposals. The administration says it wants to help small businesses, and it has touted the recently passed small business bill as proof of that. Yet this same administration pushes through a health care bill that Americans do not want that imposes higher taxes on small businesses. Now it wants to raise taxes even further on these same small businesses by increasing their Federal income taxes.

It seems a bit ironic to watch the majority touting the small business bill that the President is, in fact, signing into law today. They said small businesses needed this tax relief so they could grow, expand, and create jobs. During debate on this bill, they criticized Republicans for holding up important tax relief for these businesses.

So it is curious now, that many in the majority who supported this relatively modest tax relief and who repeatedly stressed the importance of tax relief to small businesses are the same ones who oppose extending income tax relief that benefits small businesses.

Let me make it as clear as I can. The same members of the majority who supported the small business bill and who insisted we must provide them tax relief are the very ones who oppose extending income tax relief that will benefit small businesses. That is a contradiction. That is tough to explain, it seems to me. I am pretty sure a lot of people are simply not going to understand that, especially in the next month or in November.

If it is so important to provide tax relief to small businesses in this bill, why isn't it equally important to extend other small business tax relief? We will not get our economy back on track until small business begins hiring, period, and they are not going to hire if they have to pay more taxes in January on top of what they have already been burdened with in the health care bill. Yet that is precisely what the administration's proposal will do.

Why would our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to allow income taxes to go up at the end of this year for hundreds of thousands of small businesses? Why are we having a vote tomorrow on proceeding to another bill that could be very hurtful in regard to our competitors overseas. How does that aid the economy? How do higher taxes help put unemployed Americans back to work? How does a higher tax burden allow a small business to grow and expand? How do higher taxes on small businesses aid the economy?

The answer is pretty straightforward. Small businesses are hurt by higher taxes. They cannot hire new workers and they cannot buy equipment or a new building or make other investments that can help their business grow.

This approach by President Obama and the majority is absolutely the wrong approach to take if we want to ensure job creation and grow our economy. We need to continue the tax relief passed in 2001, by a big bipartisan majority, that has lowered income tax rates for all taxpayers and encouraged families to save and businesses to invest. Continuing this tax relief, rather than more spending, will help get our economy back on track.

What I usually hear from my friends--and I want to comment on it--on the other side of the aisle, especially when you talk about tax cuts-- you say: tax cuts, and then, bingo, for the rich, for the wealthy. We are beating a dead ``class warfare'' horse, it seems to me. But that simply is not an accurate picture of the massive tax increases that are facing American families next year.

The majority has been in power for nearly 4 years. They have had plenty of time to address this issue, plus estate tax reform, plus the AMT, plus all the other things we say we are going to do as members of the Finance Committee. I am privileged to serve on that committee. Yet, similar to a child who has not done his homework, they have put this off until the last minute, creating enormous uncertainty for families and small businesses.

They try to justify these massive tax hikes by saying this bipartisan tax relief contributed to the Nation's current fiscal problems.

The popular refrain Americans have heard from the President and his supporters in the Congress is that they inherited the current deficit, and that it is a result of the tax relief we passed, again, on a bipartisan vote, in 2001.

But the numbers do not add up. Did you know the Federal deficit decreased as the 2001-2003 tax relief took effect? The deficit stood at $412 billion in 2004 but dropped to $161 billion in 2007. That is the year the majority took control of the Congress. I was here. I know. I could list Senators on both sides of the aisle who made tremendous progress in regard to reducing that deficit from $412 billion in 2004 down to $161 billion in 2007--tough to do. We had Katrina,

had all sorts of problems, Iraq, two major wars, but we did that.

Three short years later, the deficit has more than quadrupled and this year is estimated to come in at approximately $1.3 trillion--not billion, trillion. ``Trillion'' has become the watch word of the day; not billion, trillion.

That is a direct result of the massive spending agenda the President and his supporters in Congress have undertaken, including a failed stimulus bill, bailouts of failed companies, and a health care bill that a majority of Americans do not want--growing by the day when they find out the details of the bill.

What is particularly ironic about all of this is that the President has seen no reason to offset the billions in Federal Government spending that he and his supporters have put in place--billions in new Federal spending on a failed economic stimulus program and billions to failed companies, billions that have contributed to the largest deficit in this country's history.

Further, the President has already said he doesn't plan to pay for the cost of extending about 74 percent of the expiring tax relief--that is about $2 trillion--that benefits lower and middle-income taxpayers. I am for that. Everybody here is for that. And that number is actually expected to go higher. Yet the remaining 26 percent of the tax relief-- that tax relief that in part benefits small businesses--the President doesn't want to extend. Why not? Here is the kicker. He says we can't afford it.

We can't afford it? This, from the same President whose spending spree has driven up the deficit to unprecedented levels? The same President who spent well over $700 billion on last year's failed stimulus program? The same President who handed out billions in Federal tax dollars to failed businesses? That is right. The President says we can't afford to extend income tax relief for small businesses to help them create jobs, grow, and continue to employ more than 20 million Americans who work for small businesses.

Well, we have a saying for this in Dodge City. It sort of resembles a lot of what we have in our Dodge City feedlots, but I am not going to go into that.

A recent observation by Kevin Hassett and Alan Viard with the American Enterprise Institute writing in the Wall Street Journal sums this up very nicely:

The administration is right to view the deficit as a

serious issue, but this sudden commitment to fiscal

responsibility is bizarrely inconsistent. The administration

professes deep concern about the $700 billion revenue loss

from extending the tax cuts at the top, but apparently views

the revenue loss of nearly $2 trillion from extending the tax

cuts for the middle class as too inconsequential to mention.

I repeat, again, we are all for that.

They continue:

Nor has the administration's concern about the deficit

driven it to reduce federal spending.

That is the key. It seems to me it is disingenuous for this administration to say we cannot afford to provide tax relief that helps small business and gets our economy moving in the right direction when the same administration has pursued failed policies of unrestrained spending that do little but grow the deficit.

We can and should provide tax relief to all taxpayers, and that should be the business of the day, not a live quorum call or a bed check and then go out this week and then come back in a lameduck Congress to debate that. Then it would be, what, 40 days before the ax would fall in regard to every American paying more taxes.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Thank you. We can and should provide tax relief to all taxpayers--tax relief that helps families keep more of their hard- earned dollars and tax relief that provides certainty to small businesses so they can make investments and create jobs without the fear that their taxes will go up. We need to extend this tax relief that keeps money in the hands of families and small businesses rather than putting it in the pocket of Uncle Sam.

I yield back the remainder of the time that the distinguished Presiding Officer granted me.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 26, the resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, relating to the endangerment for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Today's debate and this resolution are about whether this Congress will allow an executive branch agency--EPA--to unleash a regulatory onslaught that within a few years will capture homes, small businesses, farms, hospitals, and apartment buildings in an expensive, intrusive, and bureaucratic regulatory program. The consideration of this resolution is about preserving the traditional and constitutional role of Congress as the elected representatives of the citizens of this country to make necessary and proper laws for the Nation.

Congress is the appropriate branch of the Federal Government to debate and design a climate change policy. Many have complained that the Senate is taking too long to do this, but that doesn't mean EPA should go ahead and regulate on its own. It is also highly cynical for administration officials to suggest that the specter of EPA regulations should force Congress to act. I don't appreciate the implied threat that if Congress doesn't go along with EPA then the agency will impose costly regulations.

Many argue that passage of the resolution would prevent increases in the vehicle fuel economy and undo the ``historic'' agreement among the Federal Government, several states, labor unions, and the auto industry. It doesn't. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--NHTSA--has had authority to regulate and increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy--CAFE--standards for more than 30 years. In fact, Congress directed the agency to increase the standards to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. And these new standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA's activities on fuel economy through its so-called tailpipe rule are unnecessary to achieve the desired results, given the authorities already held by NHTSA.

Many also argue that passage of the resolution is contrary to the science of climate change. A letter generated by the Union of Concerned Scientists claims the resolution ``ignores'' the scientific findings of EPA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that the resolution is an ``attack'' on the Clean Air Act. They must not have read the resolution as even a cursory review of it will dispel this notion.

The resolution states, ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding . . . and such rule shall have no force or effect.'' This means the agency cannot use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions. This does not speak to the issue of whether climate change is happening or what is causing it. Those who claim the resolution ignores science appear to be avoiding the debate over the economic consequences and legal validity of EPA's approach. I also believe that they are attempting an end-run around a skeptical Congress. I am sorry, but that is not how the American system of government works.

I know the climate in changing. In 2006, I visited Greenland. I toured the Kangia Ice Fjord and took a boat tour of Disko Bay to view the world's largest glaciers and icebergs floating in the bay. These glaciers were formed more than 1,000 years ago. I saw the glaciers melting and the remains of a 4,000-year-old village. Obviously, it was warm enough in the past for humans to live and thrive in that part of the world, even though in recent memory we only think of Greenland as covered in ice. I talked to the scientists who have studied Greenland's glaciers for decades. They told me that while the climate is changing they don't know with any certainty if the changes are natural or caused by human activity or a combination of the two. I found it interesting that while some glaciers are

melting, some are increasing in size. We just don't see what is happening on the back side.

The President and the Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, have said their preference is for Congress to act. They know the Clean Air Act was not designed for controlling greenhouse gases. Yet they are swiftly moving ahead. Last week, EPA issued a final rule for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act's permitting programs. The so-called tailoring rule is the fourth significant action taken by the administration to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The first major action was EPA's determination--the Endangerment Finding--that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks endanger human health and welfare. On April 1, 2010, EPA finalized the light duty vehicle rule controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, when a pollutant becomes subject to regulation by one provision of the Act, it then becomes subject to regulation under other provisions. Hence, greenhouse gas emissions are now subject to regulation under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration--PSD--and title V operating permit programs. It is only a matter of time before greenhouse gases are subject to other provisions in the law, such as national ambient air quality standards.

Under current law, the title V program permitting requirements are triggered when a facility releases 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant. For the PSD program, the threshold is 250 tons per year. In the final rule, EPA ``tailors'' the application of the programs to significantly higher threshold levels. Without the tailoring rule, EPA estimates that about 6 million sources, including 37,000 farms and 3.9 million single family homes, will be required to obtain Clean Air Act permits.

EPA's own documents call the tailoring rule a commonsense approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act permitting programs. But I don't follow the agency's logic. The rule states emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these programs at this time. The rule establishes a schedule that will initially focus the permitting programs on the largest sources and without this tailoring rule the lower emissions thresholds would take effect automatically for greenhouse gases on January 2, 2011.

The agency, in its proposed rule, recognized the inherent problems with using the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule states, ``This extraordinary increase in the scope of the permitting programs coupled with the resulting burdens on the small sources and on the permitting authorities was not contemplated by Congress in enacting the PSD and Title V programs.'' It further states that, ``The new rules would apply Title V to millions of sources Congress did not intend to be covered and would impede the issuance of permits to the thousands of sources that Congress did intend to be covered.''

It is cold comfort that the smallest sources will not be regulated until 2016. We have a rule now that says it is not if but when hospitals, farms, small businesses, and apartment buildings can expect to have to apply for a clean air permit. We can only imagine what will happen to the economy if EPA is successful and its plans to fully regulate greenhouse gas emissions under all of the authorities of the Clean Air Act come to fruition.

One of the most troubling aspects about the tailoring rule and EPA's approach to its suite of greenhouse gas regulations is that there is no economic analysis. The agency hasn't even attempted to quantify the economic costs and regulatory burdens it will impose on American businesses and consumers. We have no idea what it will mean for jobs, economic growth or small businesses. Even though we can't quantify it or point to a document, it is not hard to imagine the significant costs it will impose.

While EPA isn't worried about this, States, businesses, unions, and individuals are. For example, in March, 20 Governors, including Governor Sunny Purdue of Georgia, wrote House and Senate leadership expressing grave concern about EPA's efforts to impose greenhouse gas regulations. They believe EPA's actions will place heavy administrative burdens on State environmental quality agencies just as States are expected to face their worst financial situations over the next 2 years. The Governors also are concerned that the regulations will be costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs. The Governors believe that complex energy and environmental policy initiatives should be developed by elected representatives at the State and national level but not by a single Federal agency.

While Georgia believes the final rule is an improvement over the proposed one, there are still significant concerns. Most notably is its legal vulnerability. I quote from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch comments on the proposed rule:

The GHG Tailoring Rule appears to be legally vulnerable and

may not provide intended relief from the statutory permitting

thresholds for PSD and Title V. If the Tailoring Rule is

vacated, the workload for permitting authorities will

increase exponentially at a time when State and Local

governments are experiencing severe budgetary challenges due

to the current economic climate. Vacatur of the GHG Tailoring

Rule seems to be a very real possibility.

The letter further states:

We also believe that EPA has failed to take into account

the length of time that it will take for permitting

authorities . . . to go through rulemaking, . . . hiring, and

training in order to implement the mandate of regulating GHG

emissions under the Title V and PSD permitting programs. In

Georgia, rulemaking will be required in order to insert the

new GHG emission thresholds. Rulemaking will also be required

in order to increase Title V fees consistent with the Clean

Air Act requirement that permitting programs collect enough

revenue to implement the program requirements. Given the

current state of the economic situation in our state and

country, this issue should not be taken lightly. Then,

permitting authorities must hire and train staff to issue

these complicated permits. This could take up to two years

after the requirement is triggered. Raising the regulatory

threshold will not abate the predicted permitting backlog if

additional permitting personnel are not in place at the time

the additional workload occurs.

EPA is moving ahead despite these concerns and the economic consequences of its plans. They will increase energy prices, add to administrative costs for companies, decrease job creation, and create a large new government bureaucracy, which will endanger economic recovery and limit future growth. While the final rule with its phased-in implementation is a small step in the right direction, the Clean Air Act continues to be the wrong tool for the job, and EPA's timeline and its shaky legal foundation will continue to create significant uncertainty for the State permitting agencies and businesses community.

At this time, there is no other option to stop EPA from moving ahead. Some of our colleagues have introduced measures to provide for a time out; others are looking at ways to codify the tailoring rule and provide permanent exemptions for small businesses. However, there are no plans for the Senate to consider these measures. If there were another option, I would be open to it.

The Congressional Review Act was designed for the purpose of reviewing agency actions. The majority leader understands this and recognizes that, ``overburdensome and unnecessary federal regulation can choke the life out of small businesses by imposing costly and often-ineffectual remedies to problems that may not exist.'' No description could be more accurate about EPA's greenhouse gas regulatory plans.

Some argue that it would be a dangerous precedent for Congress to stop EPA's endangerment finding. However, it is far more dangerous for the Nation if Congress allows an agency to impose these regulations under a law that was not designed for the purpose. By issuing the tailoring rule, the administration has again reminded us that if Congress won't legislate, EPA will regulate. I believe my colleague from Alaska was correct when she called this a highly coercive strategy. I am appalled by the actions of EPA.

There is a reason why the U.S. Senate hasn't acted on a cap and trade bill. This is because analyses of these bills shows they cause significant economic harm--job losses, higher energy prices, higher gas taxes, less economic growth.

It makes no sense for Congress to pass job-killing legislation in order to stave off costly regulation.

The House and Senate cap and trade bills are truly bad for agriculture. They would dramatically increase energy and other input costs and, according to EPA, would cause the shift of 59 million acres out of production into trees. With a growing world population to feed, our farmers and ranchers will need to produce more food in the future, not less. If enacted as written today, cap and trade legislation would only push agriculture production overseas, raising many of the same concerns that have been expressed about the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Rather than driving American agriculture offshore, a more sensible approach would be to increase food, fuel, and fiber production right here at home. In this Nation, we have an abundant natural resource base, an economy built on open and transparent markets, and sufficient protections for consumers and the environment.

Last fall, Texas A&M University released a study on the House cap and trade bill. I mention it again today because it is most instructive of what we can expect to see in the agricultural sector under a cap and trade regime.

Texas A&M University used its representative farm database to study the effects of the House bill at the farmgate level. This database was developed to help Congress better understand the effects of legislation at the individual producer level. The study shows that 71 out of 98 farms in the database will be worse off under the House bill. The 27 farms that benefit do so because other producers go out of business they benefit because there are fewer acres in production, thus crop prices rise.

Some producers will see increased revenue from an offset program, but it is not a significant factor in the profitability of farms in the analysis. The study also dramatically shows the regional disparities of the House bill. Only some cornbelt farmers benefit. It's hard to imagine that members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will be able to endorse a policy that disproportionally favors certain commodities, few producers and one part of the country at the expense of others.

In January, 150 agriculture organizations sent a letter to my colleague from Alaska supporting the introduction of the resolution. These groups wrote that, ``Such regulatory actions will carry severe consequences for the U.S. economy, including America's farmers and ranchers, through increased input costs and international market disparities.'' They also believe that, ``EPA's finding puts the agricultural economy at grave risk based on allegations of a weak, indirect link to public health and welfare and despite the lack of any environmental benefit.''

On May 18, I received another letter from 49 different agriculture groups. They state:

Without relief from Congress, we fully expect the

application of these programs to have severe economic impacts

on agriculture. Not only will producers likely incur

increased costs as a result of the regulatory impacts on

other economic sectors, but agricultural producers will

eventually be directly regulated. The final EPA tailoring

rule estimates the average cost for these permits is $23,200

per permit. For the 37,000 farms identified by EPA as likely

to require permits this would cost them more than $866

million just to obtain the permit.

In contrast to the campaign slogans and feel-good messages of hope and change for farmers, ranchers and rural America, this administration is causing great pain through its actions, especially its economic policies and far-reaching regulatory programs and goals. The endangerment finding and related regulations are only one set--albeit a very significant set--of regulatory actions facing producers and rural America. By themselves, these will impose higher energy costs on rural residents and businesses. Higher costs in rural areas mean fewer jobs and opportunities for those who live there.

Another immense expansion of Federal regulatory authority that will have severe consequences for producers and rural landowners is the administration's support for legislation to grant EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers--Corps--nearly unlimited regulatory control over all ``intrastate waters,'' including all wet areas within a State, such as groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, and desert features. The administration supports giving EPA and the Corps unrestricted authority to regulate all private and public activities that may affect intrastate waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in or may impact water at all. Unbelievably, the administration supports eliminating the existing regulatory limitations that allow commonsense uses such as those allowed with a prior converted cropland designation. I strongly oppose this effort to expand EPA's and the Corps' regulatory control. I do not believe the Federal Government should regulate all wet areas within a State.

The administration also is attempting to circumvent one of the most highly regarded environmental statutes--the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, that governs the licensing and use of pesticides. This is a well-crafted law that balances the risks and benefits of pesticide use. EPA has an excellent staff of scientists and experts working in this area. However, the agency's political leadership is trying to implement by regulatory fiat a precautionary approach, which is contradictory to current law.

For example, last fall, EPA proposed to add language to pesticide product labels that will forbid pesticide applications that result in drift that could cause harm or adverse effects. For many years, EPA and state pesticide regulators recognized that a small amount of drift inevitably will occur, and that when pesticides are applied according to their label instructions, this small amount of drift does not cause an unreasonable adverse effect. If an unreasonable adverse effect is likely to be caused by a certain use of a pesticide, FIFRA requires, and Congress expects, the label to reflect that information and appropriate mitigation be required.

In April, I wrote to EPA, along with the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and other colleagues, about the need for greater clarity in pesticide drift policy and noted that such clarity would benefit the agency, pesticide users and State regulatory agencies. However, we noted that the proposal set forth vague standards and would not have clarified pesticide drift policy. It also exceeded the authority granted to the agency by FIFRA. We asked the proposed policy to be reconsidered. I am pleased to note that recently EPA made the right decision to do so.

One other issue I raise reflects the administration's willingness to cast aside rational, science-based policy when given the opportunity to impose additional regulation. In January 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in National Cotton Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would require pesticide applications to be permitted under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--NPDES. The permit would be in addition to any label requirements or restrictions already placed on the use of the pesticide under FIFRA.

Unfortunately, the administration refused to appeal the decision even though it admitted in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court this year that the Sixth Circuit Court reached the wrong decision. Pesticides are not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and have never been. Instead, EPA, for political reasons, has been working to develop a NPDES general permit for discharges from the application of pesticides. EPA released the draft permit last week for public comment and will issue a final permit in December 2010. Pesticides applications must be covered by a permit by April 9, 2011. Is your State ready to issue these permits? Are your producers and applicators ready to apply for them?

This has been a particular concern for State and public health officials as it has the potential to seriously affect their ability to control mosquitoes, especially those carrying the West Nile Virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 720 cases, including 32 deaths, attributed to the virus in 2009. This is better than 2008, in which there were 1,370 cases, including 37 deaths. In 2009, two of those deaths were in my home State of Georgia.

Talk about overburdensome, unnecessary regulation! Requiring producers, pest control agencies and other users to obtain NPDES permits will do nothing to enhance the environment. It

only doubles the number of permitted entities and creates new requirements for monitoring, surveillance, planning, recordkeeping, and reporting that only will create significant delays, costs, reporting burdens and legal risks from citizen suits. These permits will provide absolutely benefit only cost.

All issues regarding water and pesticides are addressed by EPA as part of the pesticide registration process. If there are concerns, mitigation is required. We are fortunate we have a strong law that requires rigorous science and careful balancing of risks and benefits.

The Endangerment Finding and related rules, along with the other environmental regulations planned by the administration will hurt the productivity of American farmers and ranchers and make the future for U.S. agriculture far less bright than it should be. These actions are basically a backdoor tax on every American family and business by unelected bureaucrats. Federal regulation is not the key to success or jobs in rural areas or in any other part of this Nation.

Some claim that EPA's actions should scare Congress into passing a cap and trade bill, but I disagree. Congress should not be bullied into passing bad legislation and neither should it stand for an agency that is vastly overreaching. The choice is clear to me--do Senators want EPA to impose a regulatory regime that it has tenuous authority to create or do you want Congress to make the laws of the land? If you believe Congress should develop laws and set policy, then vote in support of the resolution. I strongly oppose EPA's actions and plan to vote yes on the Murkowski resolution.

Mr. President, I am a little under the weather, so if my voice fades in and out, I will do my best to muscle through it. It has been a tough three against one in a battle like I will have to do for the next half hour.

I enjoyed the signs. I didn't bring one. Maybe I can borrow that sign because I agree, it should be made in America. How are we going to do that when we make America uncompetitive, when we don't give America the tools and the resources businesses need to be competitive worldwide? This is not a U.S. economy solely where we just sell to Americans; we have to sell and compete worldwide.

I know I have said this before, but I am the new guy. I am the second newest guy here now. What I have observed is that there is plenty of blame to go around. We talk about President Clinton and everything wonderful he did. Yes, he did some great things, but he did it with a Republican Congress and their help as well. It was a bipartisan effort to solve problems. Unless I am mistaken, the majority party has been in the majority for the last 5 years, with the Presidency for almost 2 years. You don't hear about the problems we have had since that happened. I say there is plenty of blame to go around. Quite frankly, the rhetoric is white-hot. We should try to solve problems instead of pointing fingers at each other and saying that back then this happened or back then that happened and we should do it this way or that way. We have to focus on today, what is happening today.

Right now, we are not competitive. To think this effort to so-called close a corporate loophole is going to help--have you actually gone out to businesses and asked: Will this help you? Are you in favor of this?

It doesn't work unless we also lower the corporate tax rates to make them competitive worldwide; otherwise, if we keep the corporate tax rate the second highest in the world, we are just

going to chase huge amounts of jobs overseas. We are going to exacerbate the problem we are experiencing now.

I often wonder, why does it take the Chinese less than a year to build, say, a 500,000-square-foot building? I have experiences with shopping malls, just to put on an addition, and it takes years, the siting, the permitting, the regulation at the local level, the harassment businesses get. If you are a business or a corporation, the mentality is that you are evil, that you are not good. We should be embracing businesses for employing. What is a corporation? Last I heard, it is a group of individuals forming together to take advantage of protections and opportunities to expand and be competitive globally. Since when did being a corporation become a bad name in Washington? Am I missing something? How do you think we are going to get out of this economic mess? It is not going to be by hammering corporations and small mom-and-pop businesses and raising taxes in the middle of a 2- year recession. Are you kidding me? It makes no sense. High taxation, overregulation, reregulation, siting, permitting--take the municipal laws and regulations, couple them with State laws and regulations and Federal laws and regulations, then throw in the EPA just for the heck of it, or any other agency--the National Labor Relations Board; just pick an agency--then throw in the taxation levels at the city and town levels, State levels, the Federal level. Why do you get out of bed to turn on the lights? Are you kidding me? What is the incentive for people to actually keep jobs in the United States of America?

In Massachusetts, the NFIB and AIM, Associate Industries of Massachusetts, have deemed Massachusetts the worst business climate in decades. That feeling is around the country. When I got elected, they sent a very powerful message. They were tired of business as usual in Washington, the disconnect when we deal with taxes and regulation and debt and spending. You don't seem to have learned the lesson.

We are going to do something right now where we are going to offer a little piece of candy by offering a potential tax break for closing a corporate loophole. The majority party is apparently protecting Main Street. Isn't that nice. Apparently, I, the new guy here, am protecting Wall Street, apparently, and big corporations. I didn't know that. I thought I was fighting for the people of Massachusetts to get this body working together to solve real problems.

Enough of the rhetoric. Enough of the blame. Enough of the posturing for the upcoming November elections. How about just solving problems? How about getting our country moving again and get us competing globally?

We just can't wave a magic wand and all of a sudden the tax policy in the United States is competitive with the world. If we do this, if we move this forward, we will be in deep, deep trouble, especially if we don't mirror it with a corporate tax rate reduction to counter the moves that will absolutely happen almost overnight.

If you think that by doing this, jobs are going to come flooding back--if you fire a foreign worker and hire a U.S. worker, you get a tax credit. Oh, that will really work. How about if you do this, you get a payroll tax reduction. Correct me if I am wrong, I made that offer about 3 months ago, a payroll tax reduction paid for by unallocated stimulus dollars. I got four votes.

Want to talk about jolting the economy and giving money to people? Want to talk about helping corporations and businesses stay competitive? How about making the R&D tax credits permanent. How about fixing that 1099 mess? How about accelerated deappreciation for small and medium-size businesses to give them incentives to create jobs? Do you know how much money is on the sidelines? I have done my homework. In this position, I have to be prepared or else. Do you know how much money is actually on the sidelines?

Corporations and businesses are saying: You know what, the health care bill, that is going to cost me about $440 million.

One corporation in Massachusetts, one of the biggest employers, has the market on a device that saves people's lives; hires, I guess, about 25,000 people throughout the world. If we do this, if we close this loophole, so-called, those jobs that were in Massachusetts in the United States are going. So let me see, it costs them $200 million because they are a medical device company. Then with the implementation of the health care bill, that is another $240 million. So that is $440 million. So where does that come from? R&D, employees, expansion? Why would they hire or even talk about hiring workers? Why?

That is just one effort, one thing that has been passed by this Congress and this administration to crush jobs. It crushes Massachusetts' businesses and jobs. We already had 98 percent of our people insured. Now we are getting lesser coverage, potentially longer lines, $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts. Give me a break. There is no end in sight. The true numbers are coming out.

So why would a corporation or a mom-and-pop business or anybody who is even thinking of starting a business make that effort? Why would they even bother to open the door? There is the high cost of doing business, transportation costs, energy costs. They are concerned about cap and trade. They are concerned about maybe card check. They are concerned about a whole host of things that are keeping them on the sidelines. To take this and throw this in, forget about it.

The one thing I didn't hear and I thought I would was that Main Street--you know, you guys in the majority party, you are protecting Main Street. I didn't hear that I am protecting corporate America. I hear it in everything else. It is usually Wall Street. Up until this year, I have never been on Wall Street. I think I walked through it once. I am fighting for the people of this country, the people of my State, to get us financially viable, to get us to solve problems.

Sometimes I am the 41st Senator. I am. When it comes to debt and spending and taxation, I am going to be the guy who is going to hold it up to make sure we don't go further in debt. When I got here, $1.95 trillion was the national debt. It is over $13.2 trillion now, in 7 months.

I have been blessed. I am so honored to be here. You can't even imagine my life. I am the most honored guy to be here in this Chamber. I have been honored to visit the troops in Afghanistan. I went to Pakistan, Dubai, Israel, Jordan in that 7-month period. The thing that was fascinating to me was, from the kings and queens and prime ministers and leaders all over those regions, all they talked about was jobs. That is all they talked about: jobs so al-Qaida would not infiltrate their youth, to get produce to market, to secure the region so we can leave--jobs, jobs, jobs.

I am sorry, Mr. President. If I faint, will you save me? Thank you. I felt it was that important to come and make my point that I have been here about 7 months, and we have spent 10 days talking about jobs. Am I on a different planet or something? We should be talking about jobs every single day we are in session. We have spent 4 days, 3 or 4 days talking about the DISCLOSE Act. Give me a break. Do you think the 15 million, give or take, unemployed people throughout the country are concerned about the political content of political ads in the middle of an election season to give one party a tactical advantage or are they concerned about jobs? I know the people I speak to in Massachusetts and throughout the country want to talk about jobs.

How can we do it immediately? We can talk about the R&D tax credit and making that permanent. That 1099 bill--there is no reason we can't take that separately and put it forth in a bipartisan manner, clean up- and-down vote to protect the small businesses that are getting crushed through paperwork. There is no reason we should not be able to fix that. If we can't do that, we are in deep trouble. Accelerated depreciation, an across-the-board payroll tax reduction, a freeze on Federal hires, a freeze on Federal pay increases--I know it is not popular, but we have to look at these things. We have to look at entitlements. We have to collect moneys owed to us from contractors whom we overpaid or through fraud and abuse. Common sense, folks.

The thing I kind of get sad about--I know it wasn't popular in some circles for me to work on the financial reform bill. I got a lot of heat. But I looked at it, and I said: That doesn't include Fannie or Freddie. I know that. Do we

do nothing? We do nothing, right? We don't fix the regulations that have potentially been outdated for 50 years? We don't prohibit the closing of an entire industry overnight? We allow dentists and doctors and people who are going to finance the fillings in your teeth to be all encompassed in this thing? We are going to allow that? I am not going to allow it. I knew they had the votes anyway, but I took the time to work it through. I will tell you what. Since I have been here, that is the most proud I have been to work across the aisle with people for what we did--11 weeks, I think, working with every thinker and leader in this country when it dealt with financial issues.

I have to admit, I learned a lot, sleeping 5 hours a day maybe, slept in my office trying to figure it out and do it right. I was the most proud to work on that bill in a bipartisan manner. I am part of history. Is it the best bill? No. Is it going to get better? I hope so. Can we fix it after November? I hope so. Did we close TARP? Yes. Did we stop too big to fail? Yes. Did we stop the bank tax? Yes. Did we do a lot of things people are concerned about? Yes. Did we do some things wrong? Yes. But--do you know what--ever since we got back after July it is as though we do not talk anymore. We are just filing bills with no hope of them passing.

The Defense authorization bill--give me a break. I remember being in committee on the Defense authorization bill. I was sitting there in the Armed Services Committee, all eager, ready to go, being someone who was in the military. ``Gosh, I am going to make a difference. I am going to make a difference, everybody.'' You get there, and it was an invigorating process. We worked our tails off. The chairman said: ``You know, Scott, the things you are concerned about that affect Massachusetts and the New England area, we will do it on the floor.'' ``Oh, good.''

I find out when it gets to the floor the amendment tree is filled. We were offered 20 amendments. That is not good enough. The process is about just scoring points, political points for November. I think the American people are fed up. They are tired of the rhetoric. They are tired of the finger pointing. They are looking for leadership. They are looking for somebody to say: Do you know what? Sometimes I am going to be the 41st Senator, but other times when it comes to getting this country moving, I am going to be the 60th Senator. I do not care if I get reelected or not, but while I am here, I am going to fight every single day to get this country moving again because we are in deep trouble, folks. And if you do not recognize it, by doing this piece of legislation--this is helpful? It is not helpful on its own. They say: Well, it is the first step.

Do not come to me with a first step. Come to me with a real plan, one that is comprehensive and can actually work and that can get some full support from your own party. Tell me you have every member of your party and I will say you are not being truthful. And then try to blame us as the party of no. With all due respect, since I have been here that has changed. But do you know how many times the majority party has voted with me? Zero. OK. So the party of no thing, I will tell you what, it is getting a little old--from the administration and the majority party, a little old. The numbers do not speak for themselves on that one.

I do not want to seem like a downer, Mr. President, because you are a good man. I respect you greatly, and I respect the people who spoke prior to me. Being here and being in this historic Chamber--are you kidding me? To be part of this process is like the greatest honor in the world. Aside from my marriage and the birth of my kids, this is it. And to think we are wasting this amazing opportunity, this amazing opportunity to get our country competitive again and to get us firing on all cylinders.

You cannot tell me we cannot find one thing to agree on. The leaders cannot get together and find one thing? Take the Energy bill. You are telling me we cannot do one thing, take the easiest thing everybody agrees on and do one thing, make it clean and get it through, and send it over to the House and make sure it comes clean and not filled with a substitution bill and comes back clean? Can we do one thing--just one? Am I the only one who believes this?

I get that the bill on the floor tonight is important to the majority party, and I respect that. I do. I get it. And pollsters, if you listen to them--which I tend to not--when they talk about companies that ship jobs overseas, I get that too. I understand that is bad. But it is what is in play now. If we change this one thing and not change and reduce the corporate tax rate to make them have an incentive to staying, it is not going to work.

I believe without a doubt this bill will cause real harm to the economy, and that job creators are united in their opposition to this legislation. I guess it is bad to make money in America, to pay the bills. I am in favor of corporations making money. I am in favor of the employees making money. I am in favor of free trade and free enterprise. I am also in favor of government regulation. It has its place. But the government needs to know when to get out of the way too and to stop overregulating. There is a role for government, absolutely. But government needs to know when to get out of the way, to let free enterprise, free market--you cannot regulate every single thing. You cannot do it.

I have gone around. I have tried to do my research. As I said, I have to. The major employers in Massachusetts whom I have talked to--and we have a tremendous amount, thank goodness. They are not hiring, but they are there. They are not going to expand because of health care and regulation and taxation and the uncertainty of the business world.

I remember I read it or I heard it, Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, said he was worried that this bill would put the United States at a ``competitive disadvantage.'' Those words are his, not mine. This bill puts the United States at a ``competitive disadvantage.'' I believe that in my heart. Again, echoing his words, this bill will make American multinational companies less competitive. So it is not just Republican Senators. My colleague, whom I have great respect for on the other side of the aisle, is questioning also the wisdom of this legislation.

Having the second highest corporate tax rate--I notice my colleagues who spoke earlier said--well, I do not want to characterize how they speak. But the companies that are going overseas, yes, they are taking advantage of lower tax rates. Absolutely. But you would believe, in listening to them, that there are also lower labor costs as well. Yes, in some countries that is absolutely true. But in places such as Belgium and Ireland, I respectfully disagree. Companies are doing this to get a good solid workforce, paying good wages, but taking advantage of the 11-percent, 12-percent corporate tax rate versus a 35-percent corporate tax rate.

But I have to take exception to the statement that everybody is going overseas to take advantage of the tax rates.

Well, yes, this is a global economy. We are fighting a battle here. And when China can do the things they are doing and basically provide-- well, let's step back. I remember growing up, and you would look at space exploration, roads and bridges, and teachers, and all that, R&D tax credit money, all that great stuff we would use to lure businesses from other parts of the world here. Do you know where that is now? It is all debt service to China. So when I see and when I speak to the companies back home in Massachusetts, and they say: We need A, B, C, and D, I am like, we have no money. It is all in debt service to China right now. I would love to give it to you.

So how do we get our financial situation moving forward? We are not going to do it by having the tax cuts expire. We need to address the tax extenders. We cannot play games and push it off and push it off. How about the death tax? Oh, my God, how many billionaires have died and we have not gotten a penny? Good for them. One over on the government. But is it good for the Federal Government to not get a piece? I am all for people getting money, but we have not even addressed the death tax.

I remember in my first caucus, when I went in, we were talking about it, and in the second caucus, the third caucus, the fourth caucus, and on and on. It is time to kind of come together to solve some real problems so tax planners and

families can kind of get their planning done. It is all about uncertainty. The reason we are in part of this mess is because of the financial uncertainty associated with the continued overregulation, the fear of more taxation, the fear of governmental interference, and the things we are trying to do. You can go on and on and on.

So as I said, what is the point? Why even bother getting out of bed?

Mr. President, may I ask, how much time do I have?

Six minutes 20 seconds.

Mr. President, I am fading fast, and I would ask if my colleague wishes to take the remaining part of my time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concern that the Senate may adjourn this week without extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief provisions which are slated to expire on January 1.

These tax laws include important reforms such as the 10 percent tax rate, relief from the marriage penalty, and the child tax credit. They provide tax relief to nearly 90 percent of all

Mainers. If they are not extended, virtually every Maine family and many--indeed, most--of our small businesses will see their taxes increase. If these tax relief provisions are not extended, the typical American family of four with a household income of approximately $50,000 will see their taxes increase by about $2,900 next year. That is right. Coupled with tax increases that are included in the new health care reform law, which I opposed, the result would be one of the largest tax increases in our history.

Many economists contend this is the worst possible time to increase taxes because our economy is so fragile. I fully agree. I cannot imagine anyone even contemplating increasing taxes in the midst of a recession. The consequences for small businesses would also be dire. Higher taxes would take critical investment dollars away, leaving less for innovation and expansion, not to mention employee wages and benefits. Raising taxes when the economy is still weak would make it difficult and in some cases impossible for small businesses to start, grow, and create jobs.

Peter Orszag, President Obama's former OMB Director, recently penned and op-ed for the New York Times in which he argued that this is no time to raise taxes. As he pointed out, the failure to extend existing tax relief would ``make an already stagnating job market worse.'' He went on to say:

Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further

depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are

capable of producing at full tilt.

I hope President Obama will heed the advice of his former budget director and abandon his plan to raise taxes at this critical time.

It is important to understand that many small businesses are passthrough entities such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations. These small businesses must report their earnings on their owner's individual income tax returns. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that there are some 750,000 passthrough small businesses in the top two tax brackets.

I wish to share with my colleagues examples of a couple small businesses in Maine that would be hurt by this tax increase. They are representative of many others, of course.

This August, I toured several remarkable businesses in my home state. Their products are diverse and their histories vary greatly, but they share the traits of ingenuity, energy, and a commitment to excellence. The employees and the owners of these small businesses work so hard. An example is D&G Machine Products of Westbrook. Its name and products may not be familiar to the general public, but it is internationally known and respected throughout the pulp and paper, high technology, power, petrochemical, food processing, aerospace, and defense industries. Its precision design machining and fabrication operations put Maine on the cutting edge of innovation. As is so often the case, success started small with this small business. D&G was founded in 1967 by Dave Gushee and Fred Loring in a one-car garage behind Dave's home. They specialized in producing custom tooling and dyes for equipment manufacturers in the Portland area and soon added fabrication and welding services. D&G's founding principles of quality, attention to detail and delivering unsurpassed customer satisfaction paid off.

Within a few years, this young company outgrew the tiny garage and expanded into sophisticated design and engineering services. Today D&G has more than 100,000 square feet of shop space and more than 130 highly skilled and dedicated employees. I met many of them during my tour last month.

Duane Gushee, who now runs the company, tells me he is very concerned about the impact higher taxes would have on his company's ability to compete. Duane pointed out to me that his company does not compete primarily against other Maine firms or even against other U.S. companies. It has to compete successfully with companies all around the world for markets and customers. Without constant innovation and investment in cutting edge technology, D&G will lose its customers, and its employees will lose their jobs. If we don't act, the tax increase that will hit D&G on January 1 will take money out of its bottom line, money that is needed to upgrade equipment and stay ahead of foreign competition.

Another small business I visited is Pottle's Transportation, a trucking company headquartered in Bangor. This company was founded in 1972, and it has grown to more than 200 employees with 150 trucks. Pottle's now provides service throughout the continental United States and Canada, although it concentrates its efforts in the Northeast. It is known for maintaining an impressive on-time delivery record without sacrificing safety. In fact, it has received award after award in recognition of its safety record. Pottle's is also known for its commitment to the environment. Pottle's is a member of EPA's Smartway Program and received the EPA Environmental Merit Award in 2008.

The past few years have been very tough on the trucking industry. Barry Pottle, who runs the company, tells me that 1,100 trucking companies around the country have gone under so far this year. His company is in the black right now, but it is a real struggle to generate the capital needed to keep his trucks on the road. Pottle's needs to buy 25 to 30 trucks every year just to maintain its fleet. New trucks used to cost the company about $100,000, but in the past few years, the cost has gone up by another $25,000. Barry tells me this is due to an excise tax on heavy trucks passed in 2006 and new environmental regulations that require $13,000 in emissions equipment on each new truck. Together, these changes have raised Pottle's annual cost of doing business by about three-quarters of $1 million. On top of this, Barry has to worry about the tax increases his company will face if the 2001 and 2003 tax relief laws expire at the end of this year.

Visiting these businesses and others, reading what economists such as Peter Orszag have said, has confirmed my belief that the administration must reverse its present course, which is stifling job growth, discouraging entrepreneurship and risk taking, and hobbling the economic recovery. Americans should be proud of the spirit, the drive, and the determination that has produced small business success stories such as D&G Machine Products and Pottle's Transportation.

We in Washington must recognize that the policies we adopt or the tax laws we fail to extend have an impact on whether these companies can start up, grow, prosper, and, most of all, create good jobs. So what I have suggested we do as a compromise is to extend these two important tax relief laws for another 2 years. That will get us through this recession. It will send a strong signal to the business community.

I cannot tell you how many businesses have told me they are holding on to capital right now. They do not dare invest to create much needed jobs because of the uncertainty of what is going to happen on tax policy. We know we need to revamp our Tax Code. We need to make it fairer. We need to make it simpler. But for right now the best thing we could do would be to extend those two laws--the 2001 and 2003 tax reform laws--for an additional 2 years to provide certainty to businesses and to send a strong signal that we get it. We know we should not increase taxes in the midst of a recession.

One of the most startling conversations I had during August was with a small businessman who owns a small community grocery store. He told me he had an opportunity to buy a second store in another rural Maine town. He said he had the financing in place to make the purchase, and he would like to create more jobs and keep this small business going serving the needs of the community.

I said to him: Well, why don't you just do it? Interest rates are low, so it seems like a good time. Is the uncertainty about what is coming out of Washington keeping you from acting?

He said: You know, Senator, it is not so much the uncertainty. It is the certainty, the certainty of higher taxes, of more regulation, of having to pay more for health insurance for my employees. It is the certainty of more spending. That is what is discouraging me.

So I hope we could come together right now, and before we go home pass a 2-year extension of the current tax

law, to provide some certainty that we are not going to impose higher taxes on the American people and our small businesses.

U.S. Postal Service

Mr. President, in my remaining time, I would like to speak today about the future of the U.S. Postal Service.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a dire financial crisis. The data are grim. In the first three quarters of fiscal year 2010, the Postal Service posted a net loss of $5.4 billion. By the end of this week, when the fiscal year ends, I expect that number may hit $7 billion that the Postal Service will be in the red for this fiscal year alone.

Obviously, faced with this much red ink, the Postal Service needs to do everything possible to increase its revenue and reduce costs. Yet the Postal Service's plan for regaining its fiscal footing relies too heavily on service cutbacks, relief from funding its known liabilities, and the hope that enormous rate increases will be approved.

I am a huge supporter of the Postal Service, and I want it not only to survive but to thrive. It is a vital American institution that serves our Nation and whose roots are found in our Constitution.

To help the Postal Service identify additional areas for cost reductions, I asked the Postal Service inspector general to review three areas: the benefits the Postal Service pays on behalf of its employees, the Postal Service's contracting policies--which is an area where Senator Claire McCaskill, who has been a real leader in procurement reform, joined with me--and, third, the Postal Service's area and district field office structure to see if there were efficiencies that could be realized there.

I must say, I was both dismayed and outraged when I received the results of the IG's audits.

The IG found stunning evidence of contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, financial waste, and excessive executive perks which, if remedied, could allow the Postal Service to realize in excess of $800 million in savings next year alone. That is at a minimum.

Let me give you some startling facts the IG found. For a long time, we have known the Postal Service has been more generous in paying the health insurance and the life insurance premiums of its employees, most of whom participate in the same health insurance and life insurance programs as Federal employees.

But what we did not know until this review was conducted is that the Postal Service pays 100 percent of the health insurance premiums for 835 of its top executives, an expensive perk that no governmental agency appears to provide.

This costs the Postal Service an estimated $10 million annually. If the Postal Service brought the contribution for these executives into line with federal agencies, it could save $2.8 million per year on this change alone.

It is unbelievable to me the Postal Service--awash in debt and asking for huge postal rate increases--is paying the full health care premiums for 835 of its executives.

The Postal Service is now paying 79 percent of health insurance contributions for its rank-and-file employees, in comparison to 72 percent for the average Federal employee. It is a little hard for the Postal Service to make the case to its employees that it needs to reduce health insurance if it is paying 100 percent of the premiums for 835 of its top executives. If the Postal Service brought its benefit contributions in line with other Federal agencies, it could save more than $700 million next year alone.

But that is not all. When Senator McCaskill and I requested that the IG review the Postal Service's contracting practices, the IG discovered unfair and unethical practices replete with no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism.

The Postal Service's contract management did not protect it from waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open. The Postal Service could not even identify how many contracts were awarded without competition. The inspector general found that 35 percent of the no-bid contracts it did review lacked justification. As part of its review, the IG discovered that more than 2,700 contracts had been awarded to former postal employees since 1991. Of these contracts, 359 were awarded as no-bid contracts to former postal employees in the last 3 years. Seventeen of them were noncompetitive contracts to career executives within 1 year of their leaving the Postal Service.

Some former executives were brought back at nearly twice their former pay--an outrageous practice the IG says raises serious ethical questions, hurts employee morale, and has tarnished the Postal Service's public image.

In one particularly egregious example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract just 2 months after retiring. The purpose? To train his successor.

The findings of these three investigations show that the Postal Service must get more serious about cost cutting. Clearly, there are savings to be had.

Faced with shrinking mail volume and a declining workforce, the Postal Service understands the need to reduce unnecessary costs but its efforts have fallen short.

For example, the Postal Service can realize structural efficiencies. Even after the Postal Service consolidated 1 area office and 6 district offices last year, the structure still includes 8 area offices and 74 district offices, costing approximately $1.5 billion during fiscal year 2009.

To determine if additional efficiencies exist, the inspector general reviewed area and district offices, which handle administrative functions but do not actually handle any mail. In doing so, the IG identified several options for consolidating the area and district field office structure.

One option, which would entail closing area and district offices that have less than the mean mail volume and work hours, could save the Postal Service more than $100 million annually.

Another, more conservative, option could save the Postal Service some $33.6 million annually by closing district offices that are within 50 miles of one another.

Management at headquarters reported that last year's consolidations went smoothly, with no negative impact on operations. That result clearly shows that the Postal Service should continue its strategic efforts to consolidate.

After receiving the results of these three IG investigations last week, I wrote a letter to the Postmaster General, urging him to implement the inspector general's recommendations immediately.

In my letter, I emphasized that the IG reports had found concrete ways for the Postal Service to cut sizeable expenses. Reducing costs is a far better solution than reducing service and increasing rates remedies that run the risk of driving away even more customers.

Additionally, the Postal Service should increase cross-craft training and collaborate with high-volume customers to increase mail volume through initiatives like the ``Summer Sale.''

It also should work with OMB and OPM to access the more than $50 billion which the Postal Regulatory Commission believes USPS has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System fund.

I have been pressing the Office of Personnel Management to change its method for calculating the Postal Service payments into the CSRS pension fund consistent with the 2006 Postal reform law. The OPM, however, stubbornly refuses to change its methodology or to even admit that the 2006 Postal law permits them to do so.

I have continued to stress the importance of this change to both OPM and the administration. Clearly, the Postal Service's refund of a more than $50 billion overpayment would greatly aid its current financial condition.

In sum, the Postal Service must devote more energy and adapt a laser focus to reducing costs, such as those identified in the recent IG reports. It also must develop customer-first programs that can enhance revenue, increase volume, and earn loyalty.

The Postal Service is at a crossroads. It must choose the correct path. It must take steps toward a bright future that allows it to grow and thrive. It must reject the path of service reductions and ongoing postal rate hikes, which will only alienate customers.

The Postal Service must reinvent itself by embracing change that will revitalize its business model and enable it to attract and keep customers. These actions are within its reach and will

help protect and preserve this vital American institution.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this evening, we will be discussing-- debating--a very important principle; that is, whether we are going to focus on making things in America and whether we are going to stop the incentives that ship our jobs overseas. This debate is about our efforts, through a bill we will be voting on tomorrow, to stop shipping our jobs overseas. That is what this is about.

We know we are in a global economy. We understand we need to do business around the world, but we want to export our products, not our jobs. Right now, we are exporting too many of our jobs. Frankly, there has been no State that has been hurt more from this set of policies as well as inactions than my home State of Michigan. No State has been hurt more.

For too long, we have not been enforcing our trade laws. We allow China to manipulate their currency so they can bring products into our country at a cheaper price artificially, which is against WTO. It is against the law. But they have been allowed to do that. I am very pleased the House is going to be taking action this week to address that. A number of us, Senator Schumer and I, Senator Lindsey Graham and a number of others, have legislation to do that, and we will be addressing that as we move forward in the Congress the rest of the year to get that done.

So enforcing our trade laws, stopping currency manipulation, stopping countries from stealing our patents, from artificially blocking us from going in and selling to them, this is very important. But we also know there are policies in place that have put the wrong incentives in place--the wrong incentives. That is what the bill we will be voting on tomorrow will eliminate. We have two areas where we want to take away incentives right now to shift jobs overseas and we want to put in place an incentive to bring back jobs--three provisions in our bill.

There is an incentive to create American jobs by allowing a company that, after the passage of the bill, brings back a job--hopefully a lot of jobs--to the United States sometime in the next 3 years. They would get a holiday of the payroll tax for 2 years, for 24 months, if they are bringing jobs back and it is clear that job was coming back from overseas. If they are stopping a job overseas, creating a job here, we want to create an incentive.

We also want to take away those things that have encouraged jobs being shipped overseas. The second provision would deny business deductions of any costs associated with moving jobs overseas.

The third provision would end corporate tax deferral of overseas income.

Why in the world American taxpayers would want to subsidize essentially shipping jobs overseas through our Tax Code is beyond me. That is what we want to change. Someone should not be writing off the costs of moving the jobs overseas and setting up shop somewhere else. This legislation would take away that tax deduction, that business deduction for writing off those costs you use to ship jobs overseas.

I have seen the devastation in communities around Michigan from efforts where a business will close up shop and will take jobs overseas. In many cases it is over the river to Canada or down to Mexico. I remember Electrolux, in Greenville, MI--it was 2,700 jobs in a community of 8,000 people--making refrigerators. They were productive, doing a great job. There was a second shift, in some cases a third shift. But they decided a few years ago to close up shop, 2,700 jobs lost, and they went to Mexico--where they could pay $1.50 an hour, by the way.

We have a Tax Code that would allow Electrolux to write off the business expenses to take those 2,700 jobs down to Mexico. This legislation stops that. It would provide incentives for bringing jobs back.

We cannot have an economy unless we are making things. That is the second part of what we are doing. We want to stop jobs being shipped overseas, but we want to make it in America. We want to make things in America again. We do not have an economy, no country has an economy, unless we make things and grow things and add value to them. I am very proud to say in

Michigan that is what we do: We make things, we grow things, we add value to things. If we focus on making things in America again, we will not only bring jobs back, we will bring the middle class back because, as we have learned painfully, after seeing the last decade a focusing on cheap prices but not where things are made, that if we do not have manufacturing in this country and if we are not focused on where things are made, we will lose good-paying middle-class jobs. We have lost many of them.

In fact, from 2001 until 2009 we lost 4.7 million manufacturing jobs in America. Nearly 27 percent of the jobs in manufacturing were lost during the last administration, from 2001 to 2009. We want to turn that around. In fact, we have been focused on turning that around. We have been focused in a number of ways to grow manufacturing, for example, in the Recovery Act with the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit--48C it is dubbed--which has brought a number of new businesses to Michigan and others around the country, focusing on other kinds of clean energy manufacturing, to make things in America. We have begun to see the manufacturing numbers go up--way too slowly, but one of the ways to make sure it moves more quickly is if we close the incentives to ship the jobs overseas. If we close those incentives for shipping jobs overseas and, instead, put the right kinds of incentives in place, we will bring jobs back and we will be able to partner with businesses to be able to do that.

One example I was pleased to author in the Energy bill passed a couple of years ago is a retooling loan program to help automakers and others manufacturing to be able to retool older plants and to be able to bring jobs back. We have seen a wonderful case of that with Ford Motor Company bringing the Ford Focus production back from Mexico to a plant in Wayne, MI, partnering with the Federal Government on the right kind of incentives to retool a plant--from a truck plant down to an energy-efficient, fuel-efficient car plant. Those are the kinds of incentives we need to have in place, not incentives that say if you ship jobs overseas you can write off the costs on your taxes.

We know the kinds of incentives that can work. We have seen them work. We have to have a much more aggressive policy about making things in America and making sure that we are closing the loopholes that have stopped the efforts to take our jobs overseas.

There is so much we need to do. I feel a tremendous sense of urgency about this issue of making things in America because of my great State, where we make not only automobiles, we make appliances, we make medical equipment--you name it and somebody in Michigan is probably making parts for it.

We have created a whole generation and a middle class because of our ability to make things in America. Then we see what has happened, where we have seen the pressures coming in an international marketplace with other countries rushing to have a manufacturing policy--China, Korea, India, Germany, of course Japan--rushing to have a manufacturing economy and doing whatever they can, cutting corners, not following the law, stealing patents, manipulating currency, and putting up trade barriers.

We are in a marketplace where we have to fight for our businesses and our workers, to keep the opportunities to make things here in America, not fold up and assume that your jobs are going to be lost and, in fact, incentivize that by tax policy.

The legislation we have in front of us is one of the most important, fundamental pieces of legislation that we have voted on this year, in terms of jobs and turning the incentives around. We want to make things in America and we want to stop shipping our jobs overseas. We want to incentivize companies to bring jobs back by giving them a 2-year payroll holiday for jobs that are coming back from other countries and putting people to work. We want to take away the ability to defer taxes on profits made on businesses overseas and to use business deductions from the American tax system to be able to deduct from American taxes those costs that are being expended to ship jobs overseas.

This is a time to be focused on fighting for America, on fighting for good-paying jobs and for workers and for businesses that have done the right thing. People who do nothing more than get up and go to work in the morning are proud of their skills. We have the best, most skilled workforce, the best engineers. We create the innovation in this country. But our tax policies encourage that to go overseas to create jobs. That is what this legislation is meant to address. This is about fighting for America, fighting for our American dream. It is about making sure that our priority is to make things in America again and to stop the policies that are shipping our jobs overseas.

I see my colleague from California here, who is such a champion on this issue, who has spoken out so many times on behalf of her State of California. We share many things, actually, in terms of innovation. In fact, we talk about innovation oftentimes as created in California, that we are buying it and putting it in our automobiles as well as creating it ourselves in Michigan. We have a great partnership.

You have more computer power in your automobile than anything else you own and we are very proud of that, and we are proud of the partnership we have--I am proud of the partnership with my friend from California, who is such a fighter for her people and a fighter for jobs.

I will relinquish the floor at this time, but let me say this is very simple and the vote tomorrow is very simple. We want to stop shipping jobs overseas. We want to make it in America again.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I have found it interesting, having the opportunity to spend this evening listening to colleagues on the other side of the aisle. A lot of things have been talked about except the bill we are going to be voting on tomorrow. We certainly want to focus on the legislation we will have an opportunity to vote on together tomorrow to decide whether we are going to take up a bill that will stop shipping our jobs overseas. That is what this is about. We want to make things in America again and stop the incentives for shipping jobs overseas.

I also wish to indicate that today, talking about certainty--and I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that we need economic certainty. I agree with that. It would be so helpful if everything was not filibustered and there wasn't sand thrown in the gears at every turn when we are trying to move forward and create economic certainty, making it take much longer in terms of trying to get to economic certainty. But I agree, and we agree, that we need certainty.

I wish to commend the Senator from Florida for working with us on the small business jobs bill that was just passed. The previous speaker said we need bonus depreciation. Well, but that particular Senator and the majority of the Senators voted against that in the small business bill. We need to extend expensing provisions, we were told a while ago. Well, the majority of Republicans voted against that. We need tax cuts for small business, we were told. Well, we just had a bill with $12 billion in tax cuts for small businesses that the majority of the Republicans voted against. Again, with all due respect to my colleague from Florida who reached across the aisle and helped make that happen-- and we are very grateful--but I have been listening all evening to people talking about how we need tax cuts who just voted against tax cuts. They have talked about how we need certainty, and certainly one of the areas where we need certainty is in small business lending, and we have just created that.

In fact, tomorrow, we are told, the SBA is going to provide about 1,400 loans for small businesses to be able to grow and expand and hire people--tomorrow--because of what was signed today. So that creates a little bit more certainty. We certainly need more of that. I am all for doing that, and I am all for creating the kind of level playing field that was talked about as well.

We want to export our products, not our jobs. But at every step of the way, from the Recovery Act we passed 18 months ago to focus on manufacturing--making things in America, clean energy, advanced battery technologies, jobs and infrastructure--from that time until now we have seen nothing but delay tactic after delay tactic after delay tactic, slowing down the economic certainty that colleagues are now talking about this evening. So we want that certainty.

We want certainty for middle-class families in this country who have been torn apart because of the fact that we have lost jobs. We have lost 4.7 million manufacturing jobs in this country under the policies of the last administration that now, we were told last week, they want to do again. The proposals unveiled by our Republican colleagues are exactly the same proposals that cost my State 1 million jobs. We are not interested in going back to that. We want to keep on a course that is going to get us out of the hole.

So what is this bill about? I will soon turn this over to my colleagues to speak as well. What are we really talking about tonight? We are talking about doing three things that will bring jobs back that have been lost overseas. These jobs have been lost to China time and time again. They have been lost to India, lost to Brazil, lost to Mexico, and lost to many other countries because of a system we have that doesn't have a level playing field on trade, is not enforcing our trade laws, having some trade agreements that are not fair, and then having incentives that reward companies to write off their costs here while the jobs are shipped overseas. So we want to stop that.

This bill, in fact, would prohibit a firm from taking any deduction, a loss or credit, for amounts paid in connection with reducing or ending the operation of trade or business in the United States and starting a similar trade or business overseas. What is that about? Well, we don't think American taxpayers should have to pay the bill through a deduction or a credit while their jobs are being shipped overseas. Companies shouldn't be able to write that off their taxes.

We are also saying through this bill that we want to end the Federal tax subsidy that rewards U.S. firms that move their production overseas. Finally, we want to provide a carrot to say, if in the next 3 years a company closes down operations and brings jobs back--and we have success stories like that to tell of companies that are doing that--but if they do that, close operations in the next 3 years, bring the jobs back, they will get a 2-year payroll tax holiday. So they will get a tax cut if they bring jobs back.

That is the simple bill. It is very simple. It is very straightforward. We want to take away the incentives to ship jobs overseas--the subsidies that cause Americans to lose their jobs-- turning around and then subsidizing the jobs overseas, and we want to create incentives to bring jobs back. That is what this is about. This adds to what the President signed today in terms of the small business bill that creates jobs. This is another step in our effort to make sure we are focusing on American jobs.

We want to make sure we are making it in America again. It is no surprise we have lost the middle class as we have lost manufacturing. Our ability to have good-paying American jobs is built on the premise of a foundation that says we are going to make things in this country. We are going to make things. We are going to grow things. We are going to add value to it. That is what has created the middle class of this country. We are losing that. People are losing their jobs, losing their futures, their ability to care for their families, as we are seeing these jobs shipped overseas. This bill is about bringing them back. It is one piece of the puzzle. Take away the tax deductions and bring them back. That is what this is about.

Tomorrow, the question is, Do you want to debate it? Do you want to move to the bill? It is not final passage; it is voting to move to the bill so we can have the debate about creating that certainty and creating jobs and making things in America again.

I see my friend from Rhode Island, and I wish to turn things over to him because I know he is a passionate advocate for jobs, as I am. We often share, unfortunately, the same kinds of concerns about jobs in Rhode Island and Michigan. I know the Senator from Rhode Island cares passionately about bringing those jobs back to America.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what I consider to be a rather disturbing trend on the floor of the Senate. I am observing more and more the majority bringing legislation to the floor for political reasons, knowing it doesn't have enough votes to pass.

Rather than working to address our economic woes in any kind of meaningful way, we instead find ourselves voting on what I would describe as ballot box topics designed to gain favor with select groups just weeks before the November elections.

Is it any wonder that the American people continue to give Congress such a dreadfully low approval rating? Is it any wonder that the people of this country look at what is going on and have come to the conclusion that the problems they are facing every day are not being solved?

Back in August, when I was going across the State, I did 14 townhall meetings, open events, where anybody could show up and offer their thoughts. What I heard over and over is that people are just exhausted, sick and tired of the games and the election year politicking that is going on, when we should be working to deal with the problems this country faces.

You see, the people don't care who is scoring political points. They care about their jobs, they care about finding a job if they have lost their job, and they care about keeping food on the family's table. For all too many people in this country, they care about the fact that the job they once had may never come back. They want action. In fact, they are crying out for action.

They want thoughtful approaches to our Nation's problems--not populist rhetoric devoid of any real solutions or a serious attempt to find solutions.

We find ourselves on the floor of the Senate this week debating a bill that has been labeled a jobs bill. Let me point out that there have been no hearings. There has been no debate on the proposal currently before the Senate. There has been no give-and-take in the hearings process to try to figure out if there is a way to come up with an approach that would make sense to create a jobs bill. None of that has happened.

You see, what this bill tries to do is seek to punish U.S. companies that do business overseas under the very misguided assumption that doing so will somehow result in economic growth and job creation at home.

This bill would not create jobs. What it will do is hurt U.S. companies that do operate globally. Let's take a look at exactly what is in this bill and set aside the rhetoric.

The first part is a payroll tax holiday. I want to be the first to admit that I supported the payroll tax holiday when the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, offered it during the stimulus debate. It is so amazing because when that was offered by Senator McCain, our friends on the other side of the aisle wanted no part of the idea whatsoever. Instead, what they wanted was to shove tens and tens of billions of dollars into government spending, leaving businesses essentially out of the stimulus equation entirely.

Now we are seeing an eleventh hour, last-ditch effort that ties strings and redtape to tax relief for businesses.

Yet this proposed payroll tax holiday is different from Senator McCain's. Senator McCain, appropriately so, said: If we are going to get this Nation's economy going again, we need to include all employees in an attempt to bring money to the economy, back to the workers' wallets, where they could better spend or better decide how to spend those dollars.

What we have here is just a narrow element--only for those businesses that replace a foreign worker with an

American worker. How many jobs will that really create? When faced with a tsunami of uncertainties, ranging from increased taxes to a hostile business attitude in this administration--a downright antibusiness attitude--will a business really choose to hire because of this 24- month supposed tax holiday? There are some business groups out there that have answered that question for us. Let me quote from the chamber of commerce. They said this:

The concept of economic growth is not a zero-sum game.

Replacing a job that is based in another country with a

domestic job does not stimulate economic growth or enhance

the competitiveness of American worldwide companies.

At a time when we have a 9.6-percent unemployment rate and an underemployment rate in the double digits, do we really want to enact legislation that will set back job creators and threaten our ability to compete in this world? Why does it leave out mom-and-pop, Main Street businesses? Why are they left out in the cold? Even if these small businesses wanted to hire to get a 2-year payroll tax holiday, they could not because they do not have any foreign employees. How absurd. The payroll tax holiday before us today is designed to only help the biggest of the big multinational conglomerates. Talk about standing up for the little guy. Are you kidding me? It tells Joe's Garage or Smith's Tool Shop: You are just simply out of luck. Considering the fact that 65 percent of all new jobs are created by those small businesses--businesses such as those on Main Street in Nebraska-- excluding them from hiring tax incentives simply defies any rational logic whatsoever. But that is, unfortunately, what this legislation does.

Let's keep examining the so-called jobs bill.

The next part of the legislation is a provision that would immediately tax the earnings of foreign subsidiaries. In other words, the legislation would repeal the so-called deferral rule. Currently, firms are able to defer taxation on their foreign-generated income until it is brought back to the United States. At a time of sluggish economic growth, enacting policies that will threaten U.S. business is downright unwise, and it is reckless economic policy. Repealing the deferral rule will only further hurt the ability of U.S. companies to compete against other companies around the world.

The United States imposes a 35-percent corporate tax rate. That is already one of the highest in the world. In fact, we are behind only Japan in how aggressively we tax our corporate businesses. Only Japan has a higher tax rate. The average for the other G7 countries is just under 29 percent, while the group of industrialized nations that make up OECD average only 19.5 percent. Let me say again that we are at 35 percent. We are punishing the job creators already. How can we expect these companies to compete with their foreign counterparts when the foreign companies have such a lower tax burden, when their countries say: Look, we want these companies to be successful and have kept the tax burden low. How do our companies compete with that? The simple answer is, they cannot. If we really want to spur job creation, we would be lowering our corporate rate, not trying to punish our multinational firms that are trying to compete in the international marketplace.

Once again, do not believe me. Go to people who are in the midst of this. The National Association of Manufacturers said of the bill:

Manufacturers are concerned that the bill's proposed tax

increases would impose new costs on American manufacturers,

making them less competitive in the global marketplace and

jeopardizing U.S. job creation.

Let me repeat the last piece of that: ``. . . making them less competitive in the global marketplace and jeopardizing U.S. job creation.'' This is not a jobs bill at all. It is a political punishment bill.

Once again, the majority has sought to villainize a piece of our economy hoping that somehow by villainizing them, it improves their chances. First, it was the credit card companies. Then it was the student loan makers. Next it was the insurance providers, the energy companies. And the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, this time they are trying to villainize companies that are trying to compete in an international economy.

But this bill also misses a very key point. A big part of the reason companies are not hiring is because of the vicious onslaught of bad policy Washington is throwing at them. I talk with businesses in our State. They are paralyzed with fear over what Washington will do next.

Let me share a story. I had a business roundtable in an area of Nebraska, Sarpy County, NE. A group of small businesspeople were sitting there. I was asking them: What can be done to help your businesses grow so you can hire people?

There was one lady there, and she said: Mike, I have a business franchise in both Lincoln and Omaha. Our business in Omaha actually is not too bad. But I have looked at this health care bill. I have gathered information on this health care bill, and I have come to the conclusion that if I grow my business beyond 50 employees, which is right where I am today, I get tangled up in this mess. I do not want anything to do with it, so I am not hiring.

That is what I am hearing all across our State. And this payroll tax holiday for those who bring back workers to the United States is not enough compensation for all of the other looming tax increases businesses are facing. It is not going to offset the problems that have been created by this onslaught of higher taxes and regulation.

I am so disappointed that in these last days before we recess, a decision was made to take up such a flawed piece of legislation. Yet what is going to happen is this messaging attempt will take up our time. We will recess until after the elections, and we will miss the opportunity to take an important vote on what is headed to be the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. A vote on preventing the looming tax increases would have given individuals and some businesses some certainty about the future. We cannot expect any meaningful economic recovery to occur until businesses are provided with some certainty about what is happening in Washington.

Every day, I get calls from constituents. Every time I am home in Nebraska, people are saying: Mike, please tell me what is going to happen on these tax issues. Tell me what to expect on January 1.

I can tell you that it is no consolation to them for me to say: We are debating a bill that everybody knows is not going to pass. That is how we are using our time between now and a recess that will extend well into November.

It does not make any sense whatsoever. No tax credit will prevent the punitive measures that are headed toward our population. Again, do not take my word. The National Federation of Independent Business has described it this way:

Uncertainty about the economy and looming tax hikes has

kept this sector from hiring new workers, resulting in a weak

economic recovery and slow to nonexistent job growth.

The NFIB went on to say:

Congress can take an important step to address the

uncertainty by holding a vote and passing legislation

extending all of the expiring tax rates. No small business

owner should face higher taxes.

I could not agree more.

As I go across my State--and I doubt it is any different in any other State--Americans are struggling to meet this month's payroll. They do not need legislation designed only to gain political points at the polls. They want us to come here, to have a debate about what is going to happen on January 1 of next year, and that is the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. These good people deserve real solutions, not populous slogans meant to fool the electorate and somehow gain favor between now and November.

I know what is happening out there, and if we all think about it, what we are seeing is the American people are not fooled. They simply will not be fooled. They know that this latest bill supposedly meant to create jobs will not do a darn thing to address their concerns--looming tax increases, mounds of new regulations, and new 1099 paperwork mandates.

If I were going to design the perfect strategy for economic growth in our country, here is what I would say the people of Nebraska are telling me. They are saying: Extend all of the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions. Why? Because

that is what makes the most sense for our economy. They see this massive tax increase out there, and they are asking themselves: How could you let that happen in these economic times?

Second, they would say: Repeal the 1099 mandate. We had a vote on that issue recently, as you know, Mr. President, on an amendment I offered. In that health care bill buried at section 9006 is a provision that says to every small business, every large business, every medium- sized business in America: Thou shalt do it this way, and this way is that if at any time during the year you buy more than $600 from any vendor, you have to produce and provide to that vendor a 1099 form and provide a copy to the Internal Revenue Service. It doesn't stop there. It also applies to churches, to nonprofits, to State and local governments. It is an absolute wave of new paperwork. One business group estimates it would increase paperwork by 2,000 percent. What have I heard from my businesses in Nebraska, especially our small businesses? They are saying: At a time when we need your help, what you are doing to us is burying us in paperwork, and we don't have the employees to deal with this.

This is a crisis that is hitting our job creators, and I am extremely disappointed with where we are today. We are literally not advancing the cause of creating jobs in this country. We are taking a course of action, instead, that is all about populism, that is all about gaining favor between now and November.

But I will say again: The American people have figured this out. They get it, they understand it, and they are watching us very closely. The bill we are debating is nothing more than an election year stunt, when we could be acting to prevent the largest tax increase in our Nation's history.

In those 14 townhall meetings, as I traveled from the largest community in our State--the city of Omaha--to some of the smallest communities in our State--Benkelman, in the very southwestern part of our State--I heard a common message. People wanted me to come back to Washington and fight for them against whom? Against a Washington government that they think has lost touch with their real problems, their real concerns. They wanted me to come back and speak on their behalf about what Washington politicians are doing to their businesses, to the job creation which this country depends upon, and to their pocketbooks. They asked me to come back and speak on their behalf because they see this tsunami of legislation that has come their way and they do not like any part of it.

It is no surprise to me whatsoever that what we are seeing out there are people who are sick and tired of what is going on here. They are sick and tired of a health care bill that is raising their premiums, forcing them into individual mandates, and complicating business creation literally to the extent where a job creator says to me: I can't grow this business beyond 50 employees because of what you have done to us in this health care bill.

It is a remarkable day in our Nation's history when the people of this great Nation are asking their elected representatives to come back here and fight against their government, but that is exactly what is happening. They are asking us to stand for them and to say to what is going on here: Enough is enough. We have punished the American people with endless regulations and with endless tax increases. At the end of this week, every Member of this body will be forced to go home and say: In a week where we could have made a difference and given you certainty and extended the 2001-2003 tax cuts, it wasn't done. Instead--instead-- during this time, politics was played and nothing happened; just like we know today that politics is being played.

I think it is an unfortunate situation. I think we can do better for the American people than what is being displayed.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this is what we are here to talk about once again: making it in America.

On Friday, the Department of Labor made available more than $500,000 to assist 183 Iowans laid off from the ThermoFisher Scientific plant in Dubuque. All of the workers were certified as eligible for trade adjustment assistance. This grant was designed to help unemployed Iowans as they attempt to find new work in an economy that is already desperately short of new jobs.

I am certainly grateful for the temporary assistance from the Federal Government, as I am sure are the unemployed workers and their families. But what is wrong with this picture? Once again, we find ourselves lending modest assistance to American workers whose jobs have been eliminated--whose economic security has been destroyed--because U.S. manufacturing is being shipped overseas. I would note that manufacturing jobs, which are generally high paying, have been particularly hard hit in this economic downturn.

In my State of Iowa, there has been a steady, relentless drumbeat of layoffs and plant closings as companies from Electrolux to Cummins shut down their plants and move to other countries--including Mexico and China and other countries--that offer low wages, lower workplace safety standards, and only minimal environmental oversight. This is happening despite the fact that American workers, while paid more, tend to be far more efficient and productive.

Adding insult to injury, these newly unemployed American workers must reckon with the fact that the United States Tax Code actually rewards companies for sending their jobs overseas. That is right. Most Americans don't know this, but the Tax Code actually incentivizes companies that shut down operations and kill jobs in the United States.

This betrayal of American workers is outrageous on its face. And with the official unemployment rate stuck near 10 percent--that is the official rate; the actual rate is closer to 18 percent--it is simply intolerable.

That is why I have come to the floor to speak in strong support of the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act of 2010. This bill would take three urgent steps to reduce and begin to reverse the bleeding of jobs from America.

First, the bill would end subsidies for plant closing costs. That is right. There are subsidies if you close a plant. It would prohibit a firm from taking any deduction, loss, or credit for costs associated with reducing or ending the operation of a trade or business in the United States and starting or expanding a similar trade or business overseas. Let me note that the bill would not apply to any severance payments or costs associated with placement services or employee retraining provided to those who lose their jobs as a result of the offshoring.

Secondly, the bill would end the tax breaks for runaway plants, for companies that reduce or close a trade or business in the United States and start or expand a similar business overseas for the purpose of importing their products back into the United States. Under current law, U.S. companies can defer paying U.S. tax on income earned by their foreign companies or subsidiaries until that income is brought back to the United States. This is known as deferral. Deferral has the effect of putting these firms at a competitive advantage over U.S. firms that have stayed here and that hire U.S. workers to make products in the United States. Imagine that. So you take your company and ship it overseas. All of the money that plant makes over there, you don't have to pay taxes on it. You keep your money there and keep expanding your plant, or make another plant in another country that is low wage and has low environmental oversight.

What an advantage they have over good companies, good businesses in America that want to stay here. So we have to close that loophole.

The third loophole we have to close is the encouragement businesses get right now to create jobs that go overseas. We have to create incentives for businesses that expand here. This bill would provide businesses with a 2-year break from paying the equivalent of the employer's share of Social Security payroll tax on wages paid to new U.S. employees performing services in the United States that used to be performed overseas. In other words, if they have a plant and a business here and can bring jobs back to the United States, guess what. For 2 years, they get a tax break; they don't have to pay the employer's share of the payroll tax. We will pick it up--the Federal Government, the taxpayers--because those jobs will come back here; people will be hired; and they will be paying into this economy.

Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for introducing this bill. I also salute the senior Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who has been such an outspoken champion of American manufacturing. He has fought long and hard to end the provisions in the Tax Code that have the perverse effect of actually encouraging and rewarding U.S. companies that ship jobs overseas. I also commend the Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown, who also is a tremendous champion of the focus and attention to try to do everything we can possibly do to keep our jobs here. Ohio has especially been hard hit. If we look at all of the statistics, Ohio has been especially hard hit over the last decade, during the last 8 years of the Bush administration, from all of the jobs that left Ohio and were shipped overseas.

Let me give an example of the destruction that is caused by this. Almost exactly 1 year ago, workers at the Cummins Filtration plant in Lake Mills, IA, a small community, were gathered together on the shop floor. Company officials, surrounded by a phalanx of security officials, announced that some 400 jobs would be moved to Cummins manufacturing plants in Mexico.

This announcement came out of the blue. The employees immediately went into mourning, trying to make sense of their new status--victims of the outsourcing of their jobs to Mexico. Thirty-five married couples worked at the plant. So many families lost two jobs in one fell swoop. In one case, the couple had worked at Cummins for 30 years. As one plant employee said:

This is going to be terrible for people, terrible for this

town. It's going to hurt everybody, the gas station, the

grocery store.

Mr. President, this is the kind of personal tragedy and devastation that we are seeing in thousands of towns all across America as companies lay off employees and/or shut down operations and move overseas.

Since 2001, some 42,000 American factories have closed their doors. Roughly three-fourths of those employed over 500 people. Not 42,000 jobs, Mr. President, but 42,000 American factories closed their doors since 2001.

The manufacturing sector lost 1.3 million workers in 2009 alone, continuing the disturbing loss of more than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs from 2001 to 2009. That is right, 5 million manufacturing jobs lost.

It is bad enough this is happening, but what is absolutely intolerable is that our Tax Code actually encourages companies to kill these U.S. jobs and take their operations overseas.

Senator Dorgan, many times, has cited the example of Levi jeans and Huffy bicycles.

What can be more American than Levi? They moved their production to Mexico and to other parts of the world. They don't make any Levis here anymore. They contract with foreign companies who make Levis for the Levi Company.

As Senator Dorgan said about Huffy bicycles in Ohio--Senator Brown's home State--workers there made $11 an hour making those bicycles. But they got fired, laid off, and Huffy bikes are now made in China at 30 cents an hour. The Huffy Corporation reaped millions of dollars in tax breaks as a result of this offshoring.

Then, as this chart shows, is Fruit of the Loom, another signature U.S. company that has outsourced many thousands of jobs over the last decade. The company has closed plants in Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere, and shipped those jobs to Asia, the Caribbean, and Morocco, and the U.S. Tax Code has handsomely rewarded Fruit of the Loom for doing so.

Mr. President, these are the Fruit of the Loom guys on the chart, which shows them leaving for Mexico, and they took 3,200 U.S. jobs with them.

It is time to end this outrage, with the U.S. Tax Code actually encouraging companies to lay off employees and ship operations overseas, even as we struggle to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The way to grow our economy and drive our recovery is to create jobs in America and remove policies that encourage companies to ship American jobs overseas. We built the middle class by building things in America. We can do it again by giving companies incentives to bring jobs back to America and create new ones here as well.

I encourage and urge my colleagues to support the Creating Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act of 2010.

I assume our time has expired.

Mr. President, I will take a couple more minutes.

First of all, I don't know how anybody can argue with this bill. It just says, one, we are going to end subsidies for plant closing costs. In other words, right now, a company could close a plant here and move it overseas. All of the costs of closing down that plant and ending that operation would take a deduction--or they could take losses or credit against taxes for the cost of closing that down. If they shipped it overseas--if a plant goes belly up, and they can't make it anymore, or whatever they have made is not being purchased anymore, that is one thing. I can see providing for credits and losses and deductions for that. But if they are closing it down and starting or expanding a similar trade or business overseas, they should not get any tax benefits whatsoever. That is what this bill does; it ends that loophole.

It ends the tax break for runaway plants when they expand their businesses overseas. Why should we allow companies that, as I say, are not good citizens--they take their plant overseas and the money they make over there--first of all, they don't have the same environmental protections. They have terrible working conditions and low wages. But they take all those profits--and a company that is here making the same products in America pays workers more, pays into Social Security, pays higher taxes, has environmental concerns to deal with--but this plant in America has to pay taxes on their earnings. The company over in China, making the same product, can defer those taxes, as long as they don't bring the money back here.

You might say, as long as they don't bring the money back here, why should they not get a deferral? Because they take those profits and expand operations in that country or other countries, further putting at a disadvantage the good companies that stay in America. We ought to end that loophole.

Third, this bill provides actual incentives for companies to repatriate jobs into this country--bring jobs back into this country. They get a 2-year break from paying their company's share of Social Security taxes. That is a good tax break for companies coming back into America.

For those three reasons, I don't see how anybody can argue with us. I am not here to say we have to stop every plant and put laws into effect to stop them from going overseas. That is not what I am saying. I am saying don't have the Federal Government subsidize that. That is what we are doing with our trade laws. I am not going to get into that now. That is for another debate maybe later this year or next year about redoing our trade laws and what we are doing in the WTO.

Why does China get away with undervaluing their currency, which makes their imports into this country cheaper, and we do nothing about it? At least Japan did something--raised tariffs to equalize the difference between what the currency could be worth on the open market. That is what we ought to look at in this country. China should not be allowed to get by with this undercutting of their currency just to make their exports to this country cheaper because it is taking more American jobs away.

Again, that is not part of this bill. That is a discussion we need to have, and we need to have it soon in order to, again, have us take a more or a stronger position in world trade than we have been taking in the last couple of decades.

With that, I yield the floor.